You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Commons Select Committees > International Development > International Development
The World Humanitarian Summit: priorities for reform: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2015–16 Contents

Appendix: Government Response

The UK Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report from the International Development Committee on ‘The World Humanitarian Summit: priorities for reform’.

The report is comprehensive and makes a number of welcome suggestions. We are grateful it recognises the UK’s leadership on some important humanitarian issues. It is clear there is a high degree of consensus between the Committee’s priorities and our approach to both the Summit and the UK’s Aid Strategy more broadly. We are pleased to say there are no recommendations we disagree with, and many that we promoted at the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul. However, even where we agree with the substance of the Committee’s recommendations, the timing of publication made it difficult to promote all of these at the Summit. At the time of publication preparations for the Summit were well underway: the Government had made a number of public statements on UK priorities, and there was very limited scope to suggest new initiatives to the UN to be incorporated into the programme. As such, we have had to ‘partially agree’ with some recommendations where we feel the substance is right, but meeting the exact letter of the recommendation was not feasible in the short timeframe.

As the report clearly shows, the scale of the challenge is huge with 125 million people now in need of humanitarian assistance. The Committee is right to highlight the urgency needed to address these challenges. That is why the Secretary of State for International Development led the UK delegation to the World Humanitarian Summit Istanbul taking forward our priorities to strengthen protection of civilians through compliance with International Humanitarian Law; establish a global humanitarian system for crisis prevention and response fit for the 21st century; improve the global response to protracted crises and forced displacement; and ensure that humanitarian action delivers for women and girls. The Secretary of State updated the House following the Summit in her Written Ministerial Statement of 26 May 2016 (Ref. HCWS24).The Summit was a success with widespread agreement that the humanitarian system needs to reform and an emerging consensus on the way forward. It sets a compelling agenda for change—now we need to deliver. We will hold participants to their commitments and renew our efforts to roll out a new approach in crisis-affected countries.

The UK Government should seize the opportunity of the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) to start a process that will bolster compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This can be done in a number of ways:

Such initiatives should feed into negotiations leading up to and at the Summit, particularly at the High-Level Leaders’ Roundtable which will consider how to “Uphold the norms that safeguard humanity”. (Paragraph 11)

Agree. The Secretary of State for International Development gave a strong statement at the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) on the need for compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) by all parties to conflict. The UK also used the statement to reconfirm our support for the Swiss/ICRC compliance mechanism which we will continue to engage actively with. Our support for the International Criminal Court and international and ad-hoc tribunals was stressed at the WHS, as was the UK’s support for the UN Security Council ‘code of conduct’ that binds signatories never to vote against credible Security Council action to stop mass atrocities and crimes against humanity.

DFID should work closely with implementing partners to clarify expectations on how resilience should be built into programming interventions and how best practice can be more broadly shared. Launching such an initiative at the WHS would help develop universal best practices on resilience building that can strengthen crisis-prone communities and reduce humanitarian need. (Paragraph 16)

Partially agree. DFID recognises the importance of practical recommendations for resilience building, and already prioritises this in many of our efforts. For example the ‘Building Resilience and Adapting to Climate Extremes’ (BRACED) programme makes a significant investment in building knowledge and learning lessons in partnership with implementing partners on exactly this issue, and sharing these more broadly. DFID is also engaged already with various existing communities of practice on this topic, which are seeking to develop practical lessons and principles for how resilience can be built into programmes and policies. This is a complex area and often highly context specific, so it will take time to develop universal best practice principles, especially to do so in collaboration with wider stakeholders and implementing partners in order to build consensus. We think existing initiatives should be given the time and space to do this effectively, and that working through existing networks and communities of practice is the best way to ensure they are taken up in the long term. For these reasons a new initiative is not needed

With specific regard to Syria, the space to build resilience is limited in an active conflict but we will continue to work with delivery partners to seek out opportunities to increase the ability of households, communities and institutions to withstand current shocks and stresses arising from the conflict. As UK programmes depend heavily on Syrian civil society, we will develop a systematic approach to increase civil society capacity.

However, we urge the Government to assert that the obligations of all actors across the global system lie first and foremost with the upholding of IHL. Under no circumstances should resilience-building be used as a strategy to mitigate IHL violations. (Paragraph 18)

Agree. Those caught in conflict should never have to accept violations of IHL but should be protected in compliance with the law. Protecting civilians and those deprived of their freedom in conflict situations is a UK priority and is highlighted in the UK’s work to speak out against violations including sexual abuse, the unlawful targeting of hospitals and schools and of medical and humanitarian workers.

DFID should incentivise investment in preventing the worst effects of disasters by leading the way in adopting the UN Secretary General-endorsed target of allocating 1% of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to disaster risk reduction (DRR). DFID should seek reaffirmation of international commitments made in the 2030 Agenda, the Sendai Framework, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Paris Agreement to help vulnerable countries reduce disaster risks, as well as financial commitments to the necessary actions to achieve these. DFID should invest in research to clarify the benefits of crisis prevention for all donors. (Paragraph 24)

Partially agree. We do not have plans to sign up to an additional target at present. We have already committed to targets addressing similar areas of work, including spending 50% of the UK’s £5.8 billion climate spend on climate resilience and adaptation ensuring the future resilience of populations to disasters.

The UK has always seen the Summit as part of a process that has reaffirmed previous agreements. This is clear in our work proceeding the Summit, notably the EU Council Conclusions for the World Humanitarian Summit (12 May 2016), and a number of statements made at the Summit. Our new announcement of £30m for the Education Cannot Wait fund was a notable financial commitment that will help meet Global Goal 4 for Quality Education.

We are looking to carry out operational research to measure the returns on investment associated with preparing for emergencies as a way of informing programming and the potential investments needed to reduce risk.

The World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) should provide a platform for discussion on how to improve systems to monitor political risks and warn of heightened risks of conflict, and to initiate political action/intervention. The UK Government should play a key role in ensuring that monitoring systems become both more collaborative and timely. Governments should also agree in advance circumstances in which political intervention, through all available instruments, is initiated. (Paragraph 32)

Partially agree. The UK government committed in last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review to strengthen our early warning and rapid crisis response capabilities, as part of a more ambitious approach to tackling the drivers of instability overseas.

We welcome the commitment the international community made at the WHS to do more to prevent potential crises from deteriorating into violent conflict by collecting, analysing, sharing and acting on early warning information. The UK will continue our support for international organisations’ ability to meet this pledge, including through our support for the peacekeeping, peacebuilding and mediation capabilities of the UN system.

The UK Government should also invest in strengthening the capacities of international and regional organisations to monitor and mediate cases of rising political tensions through use of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF). It should use the WHS to push for a commitment to a needs-based, as opposed to political, approach to humanitarian intervention to ensure that all severe crises are pre- empted and addressed and that none are neglected, as in the case of the Central African Republic (CAR). (Paragraph 33)

Agree. The UK is boosting the UN and African Union’s conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts through the CSSF’s Multilateral Strategy. The CSSF also provides support to international and regional organisations’ monitoring and mediation in Ukraine, South Sudan, DRC and the Sahel.

We agree with early humanitarian intervention and response; this is more cost effective than late response. DFID recognises the need to build resilience, mitigate, reduce and manage risk and strengthen national actors to respond to crises.

We agree that CAR is a neglected crisis. According to OCHA the CAR humanitarian appeal is currently funded at 12%. Food security continues to deteriorate year on year. If we wish to avoid a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented scale, we must recognise that ensuring that adequate funding goes to the CAR and CAR refugee response is a collective responsibility. The UK has provided £58m in humanitarian funding since 2013 to support CAR populations and refugees. We are also exploring how to maintain our engagement in the next three years to support the response in CAR.

As such a large donor, a signal of high-level UK support is vital to a strong Summit outcome and thus a more effective delivery of UK humanitarian assistance. We strongly recommend that the Prime Minister consider attending the WHS. (Paragraph 35)

Agree. WHS has been widely recognised as a success, and high-level UK support helped deliver this. The Secretary of State for International Development led the UK delegation, accompanied by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development.

DFID should propose a number of ways to close the gap between development and humanitarian interventions. It should:

Partially agree. The UK does not use ‘crisis modifiers’ as such, but is increasingly using shock responsive programmes that work along a similar logic to ‘crisis modifiers’. These programmes should build greater household, community and system resilience to stresses and shocks, and can better respond to recurring crises and shocks. This is part of a broader shift towards longer term planning and managing the risk of crises occurring where both humanitarian and development action is informed by fragility, and the vulnerability to crisis.

Our standard methods of monitoring and evaluation, and mechanisms for accountability, determine how successful our policies and programmes have been; this remains true where our work aims at building resilience.

We see the Summit in the broader context of a series of global events and agreements touching on humanitarian issues. This includes the Syria and the Region Conference and Wilton Park Forum on approaches to Protracted Forced Displacement, both hosted by the UK earlier this year, and both making progress towards a new global approach to protracted crises. It also includes the upcoming UN General Assembly meetings, the UN Secretary General’s High Level Meeting on Refugees and Migrants, and the Obama Summit on Global Refugees, all happening in New York in September. We have sought to build on these events, reaffirming previous commitments as we make further progress. In this context, we do not see a need for a specific “bridging conference”.

DFID should use the Summit to stress the long term development effects of disrupted education and press for commitments on providing an education for all children in emergencies and protracted crises. It should ensure that the Education Crisis Platform reflects a truly transformative approach to education in crises. (Paragraph 45)

Agree. The UK played a leading role in the development of the Education Cannot Wait fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises, which was launched at the World Humanitarian Summit. The UK has committed to provide £30 million in support over two years to the new fund as the largest founding donor, which was announced by the International Development Secretary at the fund’s launch. The UK will continue to support the fund through its formative months, to ensure that this vision is translated into effective delivery mechanisms on the ground that reach the most marginalised. The UK will also continue to use our influence to ensure further financial and technical contributions from a wide range of donors and partners. The UK also used the WHS to emphasise the importance of meeting existing commitments on education in the Syria region, through Baroness Verma’s speaking role at a side event on the No Lost Generation Initiative.

DFID should propose the establishment of an independent body to be responsible for conducting needs assessments in crises. DFID should work with like-minded donors in the build up to and at the Summit to ensure this fundamental problem is addressed. (Paragraph 48)

Partially agree. The Grand Bargain agreed at the WHS includes a commitment to use of “impartial, unbiased, comprehensive, context-sensitive, timely and up-to-date” needs assessments. It makes clear that it is the responsibility of an empowered Humanitarian Coordinator/Resident Coordinator to ensure the development of prioritised, evidence-based response plans, rather than simply aggregating agency or mandate specific assessments.

The Grand Bargain also commits to the use of “independent specialists within the clusters to strengthen data collection and analysis in a fully transparent, collaborative process”; and to “commission independent reviews and evaluations of the quality of needs assessment findings to strengthen the confidence of all stakeholders in the needs assessment”.

We feel that, when implemented, these commitments should address the problem identified. It will be important to ensure that these commitments are delivered and our focus is now on agreeing a robust monitoring mechanism with other parties. DFID will be looking to allocate UK funding on the basis of single needs assessment and prioritised plans. DFID teams will need to ensure that the aid organisations in-country have produced a robust needs assessment and a properly prioritised plan before they commit funds.

In addition to more robust needs assessments, we would also like to see greater involvement of local and national responders and greater accountability to affected populations, facilitated through the Humanitarian Country Teams (HCT). Other areas of the Grand Bargain (‘A participation revolution’ and ‘More support and funding tools for local and national responders’) will help to deliver this.

DFID should press for expanded membership of the IASC (Inter-Agency Standing Committee), with an aim to include representation from local and national organisations in order to move towards a decentralised network model. The inclusion of voices from affected communities, particularly women and women’s organisations, is important. Decision- making processes within the IASC should remain independent of donors and governments who should focus on holding the institutions that govern the humanitarian system to account. Expanded membership should therefore not include donors or governments. At the High-Level Leaders’ Roundtables, the UK Government should make it clear that reforms of institutional structures are a necessary but not sufficient condition for an improved system. Rather than being content with tweaks to the way institutions are run, all actors must work together to foster a system-wide change in thinking on how humanitarian assistance can best be delivered. (Paragraph 53)

Partially Agree. Local and national organisations are already represented informally at the IASC through the NGO consortia and IFRC’s presence. Given the complexity of agreeing an appropriate selection process, it is not feasible to include local/national representation per se into the global workings of the IASC, but in a decentralised model it is important that national and local organisations, including for example women’s groups, are represented in the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT). Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) reports should always be on the HCT agenda. Countries working only with a UN Country Team approach should be encouraged to move to the more inclusive HCT model that should be used at all times, not only after a disaster.

DFID is working with other donors to encourage a stronger sense of accountability for collective outcomes, illustrated by the results of the Grand Bargain.

We urge DFID to build consensus on the need to examine these concerns in the build-up to the WHS. An independent investigation of the organisational structures within the humanitarian system should be commissioned. Where structural problems are evident, as determined by thorough and objective consideration of the evidence, DFID should strive to find like-minded donors and push for an open conversation on how best to deal with them through the necessary reforms. (Paragraph 60)

Partially Agree. There have been many independent reports on the organisational structures of the humanitarian system. The WHS has now set a strong agenda for reform and we do not see the need for an extra independent investigation. We are already working closely with like-minded donors to achieve reform, notably through the Grand Bargain process.

DFID is also closely involved in the OCHA Functional Review which should result in efficiency gains for the ‘One UN’ approach to the Humanitarian System. DFID will push to keep the Transformative Agenda follow-up alive, using the OCHA Functional Review and Grand Bargain to support the Transformative Agenda Pillars The Transformative Agenda Protocols set parameters for improved collective action in humanitarian emergencies in 2011.

Additionally we have undertaken a Multilateral Aid Review to identify agency weaknesses and opportunities for reform.

DFID should push for a commitment from all donors to a reoriented funding model that invests in longer term needs through multi-year financing, particularly at the High-Level Leaders’ Roundtable on humanitarian financing. DFID should focus on education as a key sector that needs an alternative financing approach, building consensus around commitment to education in crises in conjunction with multi- year commitments. (Paragraph 68)

Agree. The Grand Bargain agreement includes a commitment for parties to: “Increase multi-year, collaborative and flexible planning and multi-year funding instruments and document the impacts on programme efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring that recipients apply the same funding arrangements with their implementing partners.”

Crucially, this secures an important commitment from UN agencies and others to pass multi-year commitments onto implementing partners. As part of the Grand Bargain, DFID will commit to increase multi-year, multi-partner funding in protracted and recurrent crises from our current level of approximately 30% of bilateral humanitarian funding.

Multi-year funding is in line with good practice for responding to protracted crises, which DFID has pioneered. Multi-year funding will help the system

bridge the humanitarian-development divide for example by facilitating the provision of education in emergencies, and enabling more flexible, efficient responses.

Our approach includes increasing financing for education in emergencies through endorsing the new Education Cannot Wait fund, which will attract innovative financing, and multiyear commitments (as detailed above).

DFID should also ensure that the Summit results in a reinvigorated role for the International Financial Institutions, particularly the World Bank, in responding to crises. This should involve a push to expand the World Bank’s Crisis Response Window and a discussion on how the World Bank can better support crisis-affected countries who are not eligible for support from the International Development Association (IDA). Such discussions should be linked with the upcoming IDA replenishment. (Paragraph 69)

Agree. We need to move from a crisis financing system based on post- disaster appeals to one centred on preparedness and planning. Such a shift requires a major step up from development actors such as the World Bank. The Bank’s knowledge on risk financing is central to changing the way crises are addressed. By helping countries to identify the range of risks they face, and layer different forms of finance in order to manage those risks effectively, they can incentivise this shift towards preparedness. The World Bank made a strong contribution to the World Humanitarian Summit, reflecting its potential to play an enhanced role.

The Summit, and wider processes including the IDA 18 negotiations and the Bank’s Forward Look strategy process, have resulted in the Bank developing a set of proposals for how it can increase its attention to this area. These address the future of the Crisis Response Window (CRW) and the Bank’s wider set of instruments and for supporting IDA and IBRD borrowers dealing with crisis. The UK is keen to ensure that the final IDA 18 and Forward Look proposals result in a larger, more efficient CRW; and a more in-depth and coherent set of crisis related instruments.

We urge DFID to champion risk transfer mechanisms such as climate insurance at the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) and negotiate multi- year commitments for the G7 InsuResilience initiative up to 2020. We commend DFID’s work in advocating for the role of social protection systems in avoiding crises, and we encourage the Department to make commitments to social protection a key objective of the WHS. In order to do this, DFID should ensure that all actors in the global system have plans in place to deliver on SDG Goal 1.3 (on social protection systems), and that disaster-prone countries are assisted in achieving this goal. (Paragraph 76)

Agree. DFID supports a move from the current ex-post disaster response approach to climatic catastrophes to an ex-ante climate risk management approach. Risk transfer mechanisms form an important part of this by supplying climate risk finance and insurance products. DFID will continue to support such mechanisms and will also work on the “demand side” to build developing country demand for risk finance, and the capacity and systems (like shock-responsive social protection schemes) to sustainably manage it and channel potential pay-outs effectively when disasters occur. DFID is committed to actively working with its partners internationally to meet the G7 InsuResilience target.

DFID supports the achievement of SDG 1.3 and whilst we cannot specifically ensure that all actors in the global system have plans in place, we are certainly encouraging international partners to do so too through the Social Protection Inter-Agency Coordination Board (consisting of UN agencies, multilateral and bilateral donors and civil society organisations). The Board submitted a statement to the WHS calling for concrete actions on social protection by governments and partners, especially in disaster-prone countries. DFID will also continue to support the achievement of SDG 1.3 on expanding social protection coverage through its bilateral and multilateral programming, including developing shock-responsive social protection where appropriate. However, the nature and pace of developing social protection systems will depend in part on local political circumstances and decision- making.

DFID should expand upon its good work in incorporating local actors into crisis response in a number of ways:

Agree. DFID is the largest financial supporter of the START Fund. We agree with the recommendation to maintain our support and have committed funds up until March 2018. We are also encouraging other donors to support the START Fund. We have good communications with the new southern NGO network launched in May (NEAR - Network for Empowered Aid Response) but we have not been approached regarding funding. If we are approached we will assess the merits of funding NEAR, in the context of our other funding priorities and resources.

We will continue to emphasise the importance of supporting local organisations, and keep on funding them. We will carry on with efforts to improve the capacity of local and national NGOs e.g. through the Disasters Emergency Preparedness Programme (DEPP) and the Humanitarian Leadership Academy.

We already encourage the country-based pooled funds to ensure they also allocate funds to national and local actors. Globally, country-based pooled funds allocated on average 17% of their funds to national and local actors in 2015. While this compares very favourably to other funding mechanisms, we agree that the percentage of country based-pooled fund resources directed to local actors should increase. We agree with the recommendation and will continue to press for increased funding to local actors.

We will encourage other donors and recipients to publish their humanitarian funding through the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).

DFID should advocate for the outcomes of the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) to include a pledge on global standards of inclusivity in the humanitarian system from all donors and funding recipients. This should include a commitment that no group will be neglected in responses and a recognition that needs vary within crisis-affected populations. We urge DFID to ensure that strong support for the Charter on Inclusion of People with Disabilities across the international community is a key outcome of the Summit. DFID should also lead a drive to promote diverse leadership within the humanitarian system, so that the interests of vulnerable groups are reflected in processes driving decision-making and funding allocations. (Paragraph 91)

Partially agree. At a Special Session on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities into Humanitarian Action at the World Humanitarian Summit, the UK articulated support for a new Charter on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action and announced plans to implement the Charter on the Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action through the continuing implementation of DFID’s Disability Framework, which guides DFID’s work to deliver the vision of ‘no one left behind’ as it applies to people living with disabilities and older persons.

In addition to supporting the Charter, we also made specific commitments at this Special Session, including the following concrete actions:

DFID is a recognised leader in the promotion and advancement of the ‘leave no one behind’ agenda, which has emerged from the Sustainable Development Goals to ensure that all vulnerable groups are not left behind in development or humanitarian initiatives. We will continue to promote this agenda, including in the follow up to the World Humanitarian Summit, and believe this would be best embedded in existing initiatives, including the implementation of the Grand Bargain.

We commend DFID for taking steps to address this issue domestically, but we urge it to use the World Humanitarian Summit as a platform to address this problem at the global level. This should involve the opening of a dialogue between all parties concerned (the financial sector, NGOs, national governments, etc.) to explore solutions to these problems. We also urge the UK Government to explore reasonable exceptions in counter-terrorism statutes for humanitarian activities, as exist in jurisdictions such as Australia. (Paragraph 98 )

Partially agree. The UK Government recognises the challenges that humanitarian organisations, particularly international and national NGOs, face in delivering life-saving assistance to vulnerable populations in armed conflicts.

We agree that it is important to discuss the unintended consequences of counter-terrorism legislation, sanctions and bank de-risking on the delivery of humanitarian assistance with international partners. For example: EU sanctions regimes are reviewed annually and the UK plays an active role in this process to ensure the sanctions remain appropriate, workable and minimise the impact on humanitarian action. Aid organisations have an obligation to establish policies, processes and systems to manage and mitigate the risk of aid diversion to terrorist groups. DFID is working closely with the Charity Commission, Home Office and the Treasury to understand and address the concerns of NGOs. The Home Office produced an information note for NGOs on ‘Operating within Counter-Terrorism Legislation’ in November 2015 which provided comprehensive guidance for NGOs on their compliance with counter-terrorism legislation. In addition the Charity Commission has provided further guidance and advice on its website. In order to continue dialogue with the NGO community on these matters an HMG-NGO Working Group will shortly be convened to explore concerns and identify solutions on the impact of CT legislation and banking practices on NGO operations in fragile states. The group will examine the specific challenges faced in getting aid into hard-to-reach communities. DFID will also continue to meet with our partners to discuss specific areas of concern.



© Parliamentary copyright 2015

14 July 2016