A Fresh Analysis of the Humanitarian System in Somaliland, Puntland and South Central Somalia: Somali state agencies and local organisations’ capacities to manage humanitarian action

8/9/2019 A Fresh Analysis of the Humanitarian System in Somaliland, Puntland and South Central Somalia: Somali state age…

1/48


2/48

2 A FRESH ANALYSIS OF THE HUMANITARIAN SYSTEM IN SOMALILAND, PUNTLAND AND SOUTH CENTRAL SOMALIA

1 Context and purpose of the report ............................................................................. 3

2 Approach, scope and methodology ............................................................................. 4

3 Humanitarian actors typology..................................................................................... 5

4 Humanitarian and political context ............................................................................ 8

5 Humanitarian capacity ................................................................................................ 9

6 Somali humanitarian profile ........................................................................................ 38

7 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 41

Annex 1 Organisations interviewed: ......................................................................................... 46

TABLE OF CONTENTS


3/48

A FRESH ANALYSIS OF THE HUMANITARIAN SYSTEM IN SOMALILAND, PUNTLAND AND SOUTH CENTRAL SOMALIA 3

Oxfam International’s strategic plan states that, “National state institutions and civil society in the most crisisprone/affected countries, supported by the international community, are able to deliver high quality, impartialand independent assistance to those in need, and resilience to increasingly frequent natural disasters andconflict is strengthened through improved preparedness and risk reduction”.

This report’s main focus is on an analysis of humanitarian capacities of Somali territories (Puntland, Somaliland,and South-Central Somalia) government structures, and civil society organisations.

It should be noted that the change goal statement “National state institutions” has to be understoodcontextually. In this case, as the report will explain there are different power holding authorities controllingdifferent regions and governing different groups of people with different levels of recognition oracceptance nationally and internationally. This report does not take a stance on the validity or otherwise ofdifferent claims of statehood, rather it focuses on the capacities of the main institutions and actors in eachsector.

Production of this report was in three phases: documentary review, field visits, and interviews and workshopswith stakeholders. However this report covers only phases 1 and 2. This report avoids repetition of elementsalready well captured in other Oxfam documents and focuses on a fresh analysis with proposals to increase theHumanitarian capacities in the Somali Territories.

1 CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

Working together from the community level enhances effective humanitarian response Photo: Oxfam


4/48


This analysis has taken into account work already produced by Oxfam in Somalia, as well as other studies andreports done externally to Oxfam. At the same time it has used a critical perspective to question certainassumptions that otherwise may not allow fresh thinking.

The methodology applied follows this logic setting:

2 APPROACH, SCOPE ANDMETHODOLOGY

1-Quick review ofproblem to beaddressed

7-Plan of action

2-Consultation withkey humanitarianactors (Government,Civil Society)

3-Assessment oflocal humanitariancapacities

4-Objectives to developexisting potentialities andhow to cover gaps (keyindicators setting)

5- REPORTRecommendations forlocal and internationalhumanitarian actors

6-Discussionworkshop

The guiding methodology has been termed “HUCOCA” (Humanitarian Country Capacities Analysis methodology),specifically developed for this exercise by the consultant.

28 organisational interviews were conducted including local and international NGOs, as well as international andGovernment agencies (see Annex 1 for reference). Also specific practices developed by Oxfam and its partners,such as the Somali Civil Society Initiative Support (SOCSIS) programme, have been explored to enrich the analysis.


5/48


3 HUMANITARIANACTORS TYPOLOGY

There are many different humanitarian actors working in the Somali Territories, some of them having a purehumanitarian mandate and role, while others focus on humanitarian work as part of their broaderresponsibilities or by contextual circumstances. The table below illustrates the basic typology of the Somalihumanitarian actors and actors who influence the humanitarian response plus their main characteristics:

HumanitarianActor Typology

UN agencies.

FederalGovernment ofSomalia (FGS).

SomalilandGovernment.

PuntlandGovernment.

Organisations

UNOCHA, UNHCR,UNICEF, WFP, FAO,etc.

FGS Ministries andDisasterManagementAgency (DMA).

Somalilandministries andNationalEnvironmentalResearchand DisasterPreparedness andManagementAuthority.

FGS Ministries,HumanitarianAffairs DisasterManagementAgency (HADMA).

Mandate/responsibility

Under UN mandateProvide overallhumanitarian aidand humanitariancoordination acrossSomalia.

Within theresponsibilities ofthe State: delivery,disaster riskmanagement andcoordination.

Within theresponsibilities ofthe state: delivery,disaster riskmanagement andcoordination.

Within theresponsibilities ofthe state: delivery,disaster riskmanagement andcoordination.

Presence

In all regions withthe exception ofmilitia controlledareas.

Mainly FederalGovernmentControlled Area(FGCA ) SouthCentral(particularlyMogadishu).

All Somaliland.

All Puntland.

Relevance

Very high. They dominatethe humanitarian agenda,influencing by funding keyimplementation partners(Local NGOs and INGOs).

High in political terms.

Very limited incoordination and deliverycapacity.


Medium in delivery terms.

Medium in coordinationterms.

Medium in political terms.

Very low in delivery terms.

Medium in coordinationterms.


6/48



NSAG (Non StateArmed Groups)

Local SomaliNGOs

InternationalNGOs

International

IslamicCooperationOrganisations

Red Crescent andICRC

Donor agencies

Organisations

Militias.

TARDO, CED,HIJRA, SADO,SOMALI AID,HARDO, DIAL,

HAVOYOCO,CANDLELIGHT,HIRDA, KAALO,etc.

Oxfam, CARE,DIAKONIA, NRC,Save TheChildren,ACF,Concern,Goal, etc.

Islamic Relief,

several Islamicsolidarity groups.

Somali RedCrescent andICRC.

ECHO, DFID, CIDA,etc.


As NSAG are thede-facto authority insome places:delivery, DRManagement andcoordination.

Some with exclusivehumanitarianmandate othersmixed with

development andpeace buildingmandates.

Humanitarian anddevelopmentmandate. Presencedominated byhumanitarianmandated agencies.

Support Muslims

around the world.

Working inpartnership but withclear division ofroles the twoorganisations andways of intervening.

SupportingHumanitarianagencies.

Presence

South Central.

All country.

All country withexception ofsome militiacontrolled areas.

All around the

county.

All country withexception ofsome militiacontrolled areas.

Mainly in SouthCentral, somepresenceelsewhere.

Relevance



Low in political terms.

Very high in delivery terms.

Low in coordination terms.



Medium coordination.

Very relevant within Somali

society.

Very high delivery.

Low in coordination.

High in HumanitarianTerms. ICRC keepsdistance from UN andother actors to preserveits neutrality.

High in delivery terms.

High in humanitarianaccess.

Highly influential on INGOs’programmes throughfunding conditionality.


7/48



CommunityBasedOrganisations

Clans’ Elderscommittees

Organisations

Several.

Multiple.


Support communitiesat grass root level.

Make decisions andsolve disputes withincommunities andbetween clans.

Presence

All Somalia.

All Somalia.

Relevance

High in delivery terms.

High in access.


High in negotiatinghumanitarian access.

The team behind the fresh analysis of Somalia Photo: Oxfam


8/48


4 HUMANITARIAN ANDPOLITICAL CONTEXT

We will not repeat here the country context analysis that can be found in several other locations. Neverthelesssome key points should be highlighted in order to understand the content of this report, these are:

• The extreme fragility of the state since 1991.• The internal conflict and the realities among the three main differentiated regions and the presence of

militia groups in significant areas of South Central Somalia.• The extreme low human development indicators translated in very low ratios of educational enrolment,

income below $2 per day for the majority of the population and some of the lowest health indicators acrossthe world.

• The lack of humanitarian access and insecurity in large areas of South Central Somalia.• The influential dominant role and vast presence of UN agencies and its complex humanitarian and diplomatic

machinery.• The vulnerability of livelihoods (crops and livestock grazing) dependent on rain cycles.• The pastoral life of many Somali people and the traditions associated with this way of life are important.• The chronic food shortages that have affected the country in recent decades.• The growing process of urbanisation, with little urban planning for growth and service provision.• The enormous impact that the Somalia Diaspora has in the economy of the country and in its politics.

• The strong role that clans play in Somali society.• The highly influential role that religion has in Somali life.• The growing interest of Turkey, China and Gulf countries in the country and its natural resources.

Humanitarian actors need to move beyond diplomatic debates around international recognition of States, tocentre their humanitarian action into real existing political and social structures within which to support andpromote humanitarian capacities to save lives.


9/48

A FRESH ANALYSIS OF THE HUMANITARIAN SYSTEM IN SOMALIL AND, PUNTLAND AND SOUTH CENTRAL SOMALIA 9

5 HUMANITARIANCAPACITY

GLOBAL somali CAPACITIES

Taking into account the premises exposed above, below is a summary of the global country contextual analysis

and a synthesis of organisational capacities per region: South Central, Somaliland and Puntland.

The global contextual analysis has been done by enquiring and exploring three main blocks: society strength,

state and politics, country infrastructure. Each one of these has been subdivided in areas of interest as follows:

A Society Strength Content

A.1

A.2

A.3

A.4

Strength and power of CivilSociety. (NGOs,community movements,religious groups etc)

Human Development.(Education, Health, Income)

Human rights respect.(Violations of human rights,gender equity and justice,

minorities respect)

Humanitarian Access.(Respect of Humanitarianagencies INGO and LNGO)

• Typology of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs).• Influence of CSOs in politics, economy and social life.• Fluent interaction among CSOs.• Structure of CSOs: Community Based Organisations (CBOs), NGOs,

religious organisations, sports organisations etc.• Fluidity of interaction of CSOs with society in general.

• Interaction of National CSOs with regional and internationalorganisations.

• Level of education of population (gender desegregated data).• Health services and facilities.• Income per capita.• Livelihood and income vulnerability.• Cultural heritage and use of it.• Customary law.

• Human rights societal knowledge.• Human rights in practice from customary and common law.• Gender justice, societal gender roles and rights.

• Minorities inclusion.• Knowledge of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and respect for

it.

• IHL is respected in practice.• LNGOs have unimpeded access to communities.• INGOs can do impartial humanitarian work.• Humanitarian workers and their equipment are respected.


10/48

10| A FRESH ANALYSIS OF THE HUMANITARIAN SYSTEM IN SOMALILAND, PUNTLAND AND SOUTH CENTRAL SOMALIA

B

C

State and Politics

Country infrastructure

Content

Content

B.1

C.1

B.2

B.3

C.2

B.4

C.3

Governance andInstitutional structures.

National infrastructure:communications transport,services

Public administrationefficiency, delivery,reliability, accessibility.

Rule of law.

National civil protectionservices. (DRRinfrastructure, emergencyresponse units, etc.)

International legitimacy.

Human geography

• What is the legitimacy of the Government?• Is there a Government present across all territory? Is there a

democratic base?• Does government benefit from regional or international

recognition?

• Level of country road access.• Communication networks, telephone, internet, commercial radio

systems, TV, newspapers.• National vehicle fleet, quality, and accessibility.• Heavy truck availability.• Public transport for individuals, network, and quality.• Other transport infrastructures: railways, airports, harbours, etc.• Health and education infrastructure.

• Which service delivers public administration?• Service quality and outreach.• Can all citizens access public services, (geographical and

economic access). Is there a big gap among urban and ruralcoverage?

• Is there any mechanism to influence improvement of publicservices?

• Is public administration supported with a fair tax system tosubsidise basic social services?

• Is there a separation of powers, (legislative, executive, andjudiciary)?

• Is there a distinction between civil, police and military roles?• Rule of law is generally respected by society?• Is there a solid body of law? (including customary law)• Rule of law is applied across all areas.

• Administration entities able to deal with disaster response.• Policy to mobilise resources at highest level to deal with big crises,

(legal governance scheme, effective capacity to integrateresources form different Departments or Ministries, etc.).

• Presence of Local Organisations able to deal with disasters.• Population’s culture and knowledge of DRR.• Capacity to coordinate national bodies with international bodies.• Capacity to deal with international standards.• Capacity to absorb efficiently external resources.

• Extension and quality of Diplomatic relations.• Engagement in regional and international fora.• Presence of foreign embassies in the country.• Regional bodies’ presence.

• UN presence and relationship.• INGO presence and active role.

• Geographical population distribution urban/rural.

• Accessibility to different populations.• Diversity of cultures, languages.


11/48

A FRESH ANALYSIS OF THE HUMANITAR

The summary results of this analysis are as follows:

Somali global context capacities

Capacity Block Capacity/thematic area Strengths WScore(0-5)

A. Society strength A.1 Strength and power ofcivil society.

A.2 Human development.

A.3 Human Rights respect.

A.4 Humanitarian access.

2.3

1.3

1.7

2.0

Clans and elder committees play a very importantrole in maintaining solidarity among people andcommunities.

There is a wide portfolio of CSOs includingreligious groups, diaspora, LNGOs, etc.

Diaspora is very influential in socio-economic andpolitical life.

Somali people are known to have a high level ofresilience and great sense of initiative/entrepreneurship.

Customary law supports solidarity and unityamong clans.

Some CSOs are addressing human rights issues.Mainly those born after year 2004.

Somaliland has good humanitarian access withthe exception of the disputed provinces ofSanaag and Sool in the region disputed withPuntland. Puntland has good humanitarianaccess.

Fst

Ct

Rii

lw2

SrSa

Gis

Lsha


12/48


13/48

Somali global context capacities

Capacity Block Capacity/thematic area Strengths WScore(0-5)

C. Countryinfrastructure

C.1 Nationalinfrastructures.

C.2 National civil protectionservices.

C.3 Human geography.

1.7

1.3

2.3

Infrastructure improvement is taking place inMogadishu.

Telecommunications infrastructure is goodthroughout.

There is an attempt to build disaster riskmanagement humanitarian structures across theterritories.Somaliland and Puntland have a legal frameworksfor this as well as policies and strategies in place.But South Central does not yet.

Somalis have significant cultural unity includinglanguage which generates opportunities for

peoples’ mobility and conflict solving.

f

T

A FRESH ANALYSIS OF THE HUMANITAR


14/48


This analysis can be represented for the full territory with these diagrams:

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

A.1 Strength and

power of civil

society

A.2 Human

development

A.3 Human rights

respect

A.4 Humanitarian

access

B.1 Governance

and institutionalstructures

B.2 Public

administration

efficiency

B.3 Rule of law

B.4 Internationallegitimacy

C.1 National

infrastructures

C.2 National civil

protection

services

C.3 Human

geography

ALL SOMALIA

1.8

1.8

1.8

A. Society strength

B. State and politicsC. Country infrastructure

Capacity per block

Figure 1a

Figure 1b


15/48


SOUTH CENTRAL SOMALIAThe humanitarian capacity analysis in South Central Somalia is based on the documentary review done andinterviews held with TARDO, CED, UNICEF, Hijra, SADO, SOMALI AID, HARDO, DIAL , ICRC , Somalia DisasterManagement Agency (DMA) and Oxfam Staff working in Somalia.

There is high density of local organisations and international organisations together with International agencies(UN, ICRC) working in South Central Somalia. Most of these organisations have good access to the areascontrolled by the Federal Government, particularly in Mogadishu and Jubbaland, but many the so called“liberated” towns such as Kismaayo or BulaBurte have limited access.

In South Central Somalia the issue may not be so much about the humanitarian capacity available, which might

be good enough, but it is about the possibility to deploy those capacities effectively and with security.On the other hand it is widely accepted that the Federal Government institutions have an extremely limitedcapacity to deliver humanitarian assistance or manage DRR programmes, although there are assigneddepartments within the government for this purpose, such as DMA.

The context assessment for South Central gives the following profile:

0

1

2

3

4

5

A.1 Strength and

power of civilsociety

A.2 Human

development

A.3 Human rights

respect

A.4

Humanitarian

access.

B.1 Governance

and institutional

structuresB.2 Public

administration

efficiency

B.3 Rule of law

B.4 International

legitimacy

C.1 Nationalinfrastructures

C.2 National civil

protection

services

C.3 Human

geography

SOUTH CENTRAL SOMALIA

Figure 2a


16/48


17/48


The DMA pays high attention to coordination with other agencies including the UN and this is managed directlyby the chair of the Agency. In terms of communications it produces quarterly reports and regular newsletters,

but lacks an advanced communication system utilising the internet. The DMA does not have institutional riskmanagement within its own organisation, making it vulnerable to any threat that may affect them such as loss ofdata.

In terms of approach DMA is aware of gender and rights based approaches but its translation to practical work isstill to be developed. It has a good understanding of conflict sensitivity as well. It is starting to implement someDRR programmes with the EU, but still at an early stage.

An HIV-AIDS sensitive lens is not applied in its working approach.DMA has no specialised capacity in any clusteralthough some individuals do have some expertise in working with IDPs and on Food Security. Humanitarianstandards such as Sphere or HAP are not known, neither implemented by the DMA.

In terms of volume, DMA is still a small organisation with limited resources at all levels, limited developed

policies and strategies and a geographical outreach limited to areas in FGS control.

The DMA’s capacity profile is as follows:

purpose

2.4 Analytical,strategizing, planningand programming

0

1

2

3

4

5

1.1 Values mandate

1.2 Leadership,

attitudes2.1 Finances

2.2 Human

resources

2.3 Logistics,

time management

2.5 Programmemanagement (incl. M&E),knowledge management

2.6 Governance and decisionmaking, organisational

structure and processes

2.7 Networking

2.8 Communications,advocacy

2.9 Risk management,institutional resilience

3.1 Gender approach

3.2 Conflictsensitivity, rightsbased approach

3.3 Connectedness,resilience & DRR

3.4 HIV/AIDS

4.1 WASH, EFSVL,other competencies

4.2 Standards’ complianceand accountability, quality

control management

5.1 Organizational volume, financialcapacity /autonomy, sustained

investment and evolution,human resources available

5.2 Geographical outreach

SOMALIA SOUTH CENTRAL DMA

Figure 3


18/48


Local NGOs in South Central Somalia

The analysis of Local NGOs working in South Central Somalia, based on the aggregated analysis made ispresented in the table below.

Cluster # Thematic area Score0-5

Strengths Weaknesses

1.Identity andMission

2.ManagerialCapacities

1.1

2.1

2.2

1.2

1. Values mandate.

2. Purpose.

1. Finances.

2. HumanResources (HR).

2.6

2.2

2.2

2.13.Leadership.

4. Attitudes.

• Most NGOs have astrong sense of

commitment.• They have clarity on

the dual mandate:humanitarian anddevelopment.

• Several NGOs haveenough financialcapacity and adequateprocedures, thanksin part to previoussupport of Oxfam(programmes likeSOCSIS, EPARA) andthe type ofinstitutional supportprovided by

organisations likeCARE.

• Most NGOs have HRmanagementprocedures.

• There are somespecialisedhumanitarian staff

with the LNGOs.

• Most organisationsshow strong personalleadership.

• There is littlequestioning about how

their mandate shouldevolve in the newchanging context. Mainlyit is new NGOs bringingnew approaches to this.

• Difficulty of fundraisingand lack of diversity offunds is common and acritical problem to allLNGOs.

• Dependency on UN Agencyfunds is a common patternamong LNGO.

• There is growing

concern about the needfor increased financialaccountability,particularly in SouthCentral.

• HR development andretention of staff is verydifficult.

• There is a high turnoverof humanitarian staffwithin LNGOs.

• International NGO and UNAgencies compete forqualified people with LocalNGOs.

• NGOs’ leadership ismainly dominated bymen.

• Institutional leadershipwithin the humanitariansector is not very visible

in the LNGOs in SouthCentral.


19/48


Cluster # Thematic area Score0-5


2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

3. Logistics.

4.Timemanagement.

5. Analytical.

6. Strategising.

7. Planning andProgramming.

8. ProgrammeManagement(includes M&E)

9. Knowledge

Management.

10. Governanceand decisionmaking.

11. OrganisationalStructure andprocesses.

12. Networking andalliance building

2.0

1.8

2.7

2.4

2.7

• South Central NGOsare good at makingtimely decisions andmoving forwardresponse programmes.

• Most NGOs havestandard StrategicPlans.

• NGOs aregenerally good attraditional programmemanagement andreporting.

• There are governancestructures andmanagementstructures in place,with quite detaileddeveloped manuals onprocedures ofdifferentmanagement areas:finances, HR,Procurement etc.

• LNGO have goodnetworking capacitywith internationalNGOs, agencies andDiaspora.

• Networking amongLNGOs is made onad-hoc basis.

• Most NGOs havelimited logisticalcapacity although thisvaries enormously fromorganisation toorganisation.

• Despite LNGOs’ goodtime management,donors’ slowness retardsLNGO responses.

• Most NGOs have weakcapacity to docontextual analysis,strategising andtranslating this intoeffective institutionalplanning.

• Knowledge managementis a weak point as theM&E systems areoften not translated intoinstitutional knowledge

management.

• Some of these manualsare standard and notupdated.

• There are notpowerful strategicnetworks of LNGO thatcould impact on shapingthe humanitarianagenda.


20/48


Cluster # Thematic area Score

0-5


2.8

4.2

2.9

13.Communications

14. Advocacy

4. Standards

compliance &accountability.5. Quality Controlmanagement.

15. Riskmanagement.

16. Institutionalresilience.

1.7

2.1

1.3

• There is greatawareness of theneed of goodcommunication andadvocacy strategiesand tools.

• Few NGOs have goodcommunication toolsand strategies.

• Most NGOs are aware

and try to apply Spherestandards.

• Some NGOs have dataprotectionmechanisms.

• In practice this is oneof the weakest areasdeclared by most LNGOs.

• Sphere standards

implementation seems tobe a bit loose and notwell monitored.

• There is notconsciousness ofInstitutional RiskManagement in mostLNGOs.

• Hand over in leadershiproles is rare.

3.- Approach,Commitment

4. TechnicalExpertise

3.1

4.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

1. Genderapproach.

1. WASHcompetencies.2. EFSLcompetencies.3. Othercompetencies.

2. ConflictSensitivity.3. Rights basedapproach.

4. Connectedness,resilience & DRR.

5. HIV/AIDS.

1.6

2.3

2.3

2.7

0.3

• NGOs are aware ofgender issues inhumanitarian work.

• Almost allorganisations havesome degree ofsectoral expertiseand do participatein cluster coordinationmeetings.

• Almost all NGOS showa good understandingand practice ofconflict sensitivity.

• Good understanding ofResilience and DRRconcepts as part ofHumanitarian action.

• Gender does not emergeas a spontaneous priorityor relevant topic for mostLNGOs.

• Most organisations workin the same sectors:WASH and Livelihood.

• Level of specialisationseems to be low.

• Rights based approach isonly adopted in practiceby few organisations,most are oriented to aneeds based approach.

• There is little evidence of asustained effort byLNGOs doing DRR andResilience programmes.

• Almost totally ignored inthe LNGO’s humanitarianinterventions.

• Seems to be a taboo issuein some places.


21/48


Cluster # Thematic area Score

0-5


5.1

5.2

5. Size /Capability

1. Organisationalvolume

2. Financialcapacity /autonomy

3. Sustainedinvestment andevolution

4. HumanResourcesavailable

5. Geographical

outreach

2.1

1,9

• There are a largenumber of NGOsoperating in SouthCentral Somalia andsome of them with asignificant volume.

• Some LNGOs are able

to work with localcommunities andreach difficult toaccess areas.

• Information providedby LNGOs does not showa coherent picture of theratio of size versusimpact or targetedpopulation served.

• There are limitedsustained investmentsof LNGOs.

• Short term programmesand dependency on bigdonors’ conditions theircapacity in the medium /long term.

• There is a stronglimitation on theavailability of qualifiedHR across theorganisations.

• Each organisation has a

limited number ofgeographical areas ofintervention.

1 The Somalia NGO Consortium is dominated by International NGOs


22/48


SOMALILANDSomaliland claims status as an independent State with all its powers, institutional systems and tools in placewithout international recognition.

Security is quite acceptable, Somaliland lives in a tense calm with its neighbour Puntland with whom it disputesterritories of Sanaag and Sool provinces.

Despite the Somaliland’s Government official stance that the country is in a development phase, the reality isthat the country still requires humanitarian assistance and DRR programmes.

Somaliland capacity and humanitarian access is the highest in the Somali territories, but at the same timehumanitarian needs in Somaliland are the lowest of the territories.

The average humanitarian capacity profile of Local NGOs in South Central Somalia is as follows:

2.7 Networking and alliance

building


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1.1 Values mandate, purpose

1.2 Leadership,


2.2 Human

resources

2.3 Logistics,

time management

2.4 Analytical, strategizing,planning and programming

2.5 Programmemanagement (incl. M&E),knowledge management

2.8Communications,

advocacy


3.1 Genderapproach

3.4 HIV/AIDS

4.1 WASH, EFSVL,

4.2 Standards’ compliance and

accountability, quality controlmanagement

5.1 Organizational volume, financial capacity /autonomy, sustained investment andevolution, human resources available


SOUTH CENTRAL LNGOS' AVERAGE CAPACITIES

3.2 Conflict sensitivity,rights based approach

2.6 Governance anddecision making, organisational


Figure 4


23/48


0

1

2

3

4

5

A.1 Strength and

power of civil

society

A.2 Human

development

A.3 Human

rights respect

A.4

Humanitarian

access.

B.1 Governance

and institutional

structuresB.2 Public

administration

efficiency

B.3 Rule of law

B.4 International

legitimacy

C.1 National

infrastructures

C.2 National civil

protectionservices

C.3 Human

geography

SOMALILAND

The global humanitarian context analysis in Somaliland provides this profile:

2.5

2.3

2.0

A. Societystrength

B. State and

politics

C. Country

infrastructure

Capacity per blocks

Figure 5a

Figure 5b


24/48


Organisational Humanitarian Capacities in

Somaliland

As in South Central, this report provides more details on the State agency and Local NGOs, than on internationalactors.

National Environment Research and disaster

preparedness and Management authority (NERAD)

This is the official agency set by the Somaliland Government to manage disasters in Somaliland. It was created

by law in 2003 and was put in place in 2006.

The agency is under the direct supervision of the President of Somaliland and has a fully developed legalframework which defines its mandate functions and accountability.

The leadership style of the agency has to evolve according to the new challenges that NERAD will confront in thenear future so that more people within NERAD share greater responsibilities to ensure the continuous effectiveengagement of NERAD with the rest of humanitarian actors.

There is a lack of capacity in terms of human and material resources, and in terms of effective influence in thehumanitarian sector.

The legal architecture on which NERAD is built could be more effective within the seven ministries chaired by the

vice president for DRM in which NERAD plays secretariat role, if they had more resources and technical capacitiesto influence the agenda of the DRM office.


25/48


Their capacity profile is as follows:

0

1

2

3

4

5

1.1 Values mandate,purpose

1.2 Leadership,attitudes

2.1 Finances

2.2 Humanresources

2.3 Logistics,time management

2.4 Analytical,strategizing, planning

and programming

2.5 Programme management(incl. M&E), knowledge

management



2.7 Networking3.1 Gender approach


3.3 Connectednessresilience & DRR

3.4 HIV/AIDS

4.1 WASH, EFSVL, other competencies

4.2 Standards’ compliance andaccountability, quality

control management


SOMALILAND NERAD

2.8 Communications, advocacy2.9 Risk management,institutional resilience

5.1 Organizational volume,financial capacity /autonomy,

sustained investment and evolution,human resources available

Local NGOs in Somaliland

The analysis of Local NGOs working in Somaliland is based on the aggregated assessment made to severalLNGOs, (HAVAYOCO, TAAKULO, CANDLE LIGHT, HIRDA) and the NGO Consortium. This analysis includes organisations

that work in Somaliland regardless of if they operate in other parts of Somalia too.

It is worth mentioning that the disparity of capacities among LNGOs working in Somaliland is enormous, thereforecomments below are not equally applicable to all LNGOs, but are rather a global picture of strengths andweaknesses of the sector.

Figure 6


26/48


Cluster # Thematic area Strengths WeaknessesScore

0-51.Identity andMission

2.ManagerialCapacities

1.1

2.1

1.2

1. Values mandate.

2. Purpose.

1. Finances.

3. Leadership.

4. Attitudes.

• Most LNGOsworking inSomaliland havedevelopmentoriented values andthey seehumanitarian workas somethingad-hoc, rather thanat the core of theirmandates.

• Some LNGOs havea substantialbudget with enoughstability fromdonors to allowthem to take moreinitiative and anactive role in

humanitarianaction.

• Most LNGOs havegood enoughfinancialprocedures andaccountabilitymechanisms.

• Diasporaprovidesregular income to

LNGOs inSomaliland.

• Some organisationsare willing to takea more proactiveleadership rolewithin thehumanitariansector.

• There is little clarity formost LNGOs on what arethe implications of beinga fully fledgedhumanitarian agency.

• Institutional values aremainly understood asinstrumental-

managerial values, suchas transparency orefficiency. Fundamentalhumanitarian values suchas impartiality andindependence do notemerge spontaneously.

• Some LNGO areinstrumentalisedfinancially by INGOs andused as implementingpartners only.

• There is not localfundraising in Somaliland

among business people,despite the growingopportunities emergingthere.

• Diaspora communityincome is very little inpercentage terms, (as anaverage, below 5%approximately).

• LNGOs’ leadership isdominated by men, withthe exception ofCandlelight.

• There is a subordinationattitude to INGOs and UN

systems that blocksemerging LNGOleadership .

2.7

3.1

2.9


27/48


2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

3. Logistics.

4. Time

management.

5.Analytical.

6. Strategising.

7. Planning and

programming.

8. Programmemanagement.(includes M&E)

9. Knowledgemanagement.

10. Governanceand decisionmaking.

11. Organisationalstructure andprocesses.

• Somaliland LNGOsare quick in doingneeds assessments

and responding tohumanitariancrises, within theircapacities.

• Most LNGOs havestandard StrategicPlans.

• Several LNGOshave projectadministrativemanagementcapacity.

• Most organisationshave formalgovernance andmanagementstructures in place.

• Most LNGOs havedocumented

procedures ondifferent areas:finances, HR,procurement etc.

• There is almost nologistical capacity at LNGOlevel.

• Decisions on responseis delayed due to thehyper centralisation ofdecision makingat Nairobi level bymost INGOs and donors.

• LNGOs do not haveemergency reserve fundsor materials’ stocks toallow them to respondquickly.

• Needs assessmentsdone by LNGO are not usedin most cases becauseit requires validation fromNairobi or metropolitanHQs.

• There is very limitedcapacity to conductcontextual analysis andstrategizing.

• Programming is mostlybased on donors’opportunities.

• M&E is embedded in mostprogrammes but it seemsto be a data collectionprocess rather than alearning process.

• Few organisations havespecific M&E units or

specialised capacity.

• Knowledge managementseems to be non-existent.

• Some LNGOs have mixedresponsibilities betweengovernance bodiesand management leves.This affectsaccountability.

2.4

2.6

3.4

2.7

Cluster # Thematic area Strengths WeaknessesScore0-5


28/48


2.7

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.- Approach,Commitment

12. Networkingand alliancebuilding

13.Communications.

14. Advocacy.

15. Riskmanagement.

16. Institutionalresilience.

1. GenderApproach

2. Conflictsensitivity.

3. Rights based

approach.

4. Connectedness,resilience & DRR.

5. HIV/AIDS.

• LNGOs have goodnetworking capacitywith Diaspora.

• Several LNGOs havewebsites andcommunicationsfacilitiesmaking use of thegood internetnetwork available inSomaliland.

• A limited numberof LNGO do have anadvocacy agenda.

• A few LNGOs arepowerful inmoving ahead thegender agenda.

• Most LNGOs have agood understandingand practice of theconflict

sensitivenessapproach inhumanitarianinterventions.

• Several LNGOs workon developmentprograms witha Resilienceapproach.

• Some LNGOs have

developed someexpertise in thisarea.

• Humanitarian networkingamong LNGOs isalmost non-existent.

• LNGOs are not activeparticipants in the NGOConsortium which isdominated by INGOs.

• Most LNGOs do not raisetheir concerns with INGOsor UN agencies due to fearof losing support.

• Institutional riskmanagement does not

seem to be a concern forLNGOS in Somaliland.

• Gender applied tohumanitarian context isstill a terrain to explore byLNGOs.

• Rights based approach isonly adopted in practiceby few organisations.Most LNGOs are oriented

to a basic Needs basedapproach.

• There is not a systematicknowledge andimplementation of DRRand resilienceprogrammes.

• Almost totally ignored

aspect by mosthumanitarian LNGOsworking in Somaliland.

2.9

2.9

2.4

2.9

2.7

3.0

1.6


0-5


29/48


4.1

4.2

5.1

5.2

5.- SizeCapability

4.- TechnicalExpertise

1. WASHcompetencies.

2. EFSLcompetencies.

3. Othercompetencies.

4. Standardscompliance &accountability

5. Quality Control

management

1. Organisationalvolume.

2. Financialcapacity /autonomy.

3. Sustainedinvestment andevolution.

4. Humanresourcesavailable.

5. Geographicaloutreach.

• Almost allorganisations havesome practice indifferent sectors.

• Some LNGOs do havesome staff trainedin SphereStandards.

• There are a goodnumber of LNGOsin Somaliland thatcould play a biggerrole in humanitarianresponses.

• Some LNGOs havesubstantial annualbudgets (above $1Million).

• Volume of HumanResourcesavailable, staffcontracted plusvolunteers, is largein many LNGOs.

• Somaliland isgeographicallywell covered by thenumerous LNGOspresent.

• There is almost nospecialised sectoralcapacity, althoughthere are practicalexperiences developedby most LNGOs followingthe instructions of UNagencies and INGO.

• Lack of specializationdoes not seem to beperceived as an issue;on the contrarymultisectoralinterventions are proudlypresented, despite thelack of expertise in mostof the sectors.

• Sphere standardsknowledge is very limitedamong LNGOs inSomaliland.

• Most LNGOs work ondevelopment programmesand have a reductionistemergency responseapproach to humanitarianinterventions.

• There is a stronglimitation on theavailability of qualifiedpeople across the

organisations.

• The eastern regions ofSomaliland have lesscoverage due to securityissues.

2.4

2.4

3.1

2.3


0-5


30/48


The average humanitarian capacity profile of Local NGOs in Somaliland is as follows:

PUNTLANDPuntland is a disaster prone area affected by drought and some conflict, mainly in the State borders with So-

maliland and South Central. Also cyclones affect the country.

Puntland operates as a member state of Somalia with a high degree of decentralisation of powers, that hastranslated into a quite vibrant dynamic and a proliferation of new ventures, such as universities, newbusinesses, as well as presence of local and International NGOs, etc.

Despite the political will to move into a “development phase”, Puntland still has a significant number of itspopulation requiring humanitarian assistance. Nevertheless as in other parts of Somalia, the humanitariansetting and its complex machinery together with the lack of trust among international and local actors, makesdelivery of humanitarian aid very slow. As the director of HADMA said, “sometimes the rain comes before thehumanitarian aid arrives.”

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0



2.1 Finances

2.2 Human resources

2.3 Logistics, timemanagement

2.4 Analytical,strategizing, planning

and programming


management



2.7 Networking

2.8 Communications,

advocacy

2.9 Risk management,

institutional resilience

3.1 Gender approach



3.4 HIV/AIDS

4.1 WASH, EFSVL, othercompetencies

5.2 Geographicaloutreach

SOMALILAND LNGOs' CAPACITIES


control management


investment and evolution, humanresources available

Figure 7


31/48


0

1

2

3

4

5

A.1 Strength and power of

civil society

A.2 Human development

A.3 Human rights respect

A.4 Humanitarian access

B.1 Governance and

institutional structures

B.2 Public administration

efficiencyB.3 Rule of law

B.4 International

legitimacy

C.1 National

infrastructures

C.2 National civil

protection services

C.3 Human Geography

PUNTLAND

1.8

1.82.0

A. Society

strength

B. State and

politics

C. Country

infrastructure

Capacity per blocks

Figure 8a

Figure 8b

The overall humanitarian context analysis in Puntland provides this profile.


32/48


Organisational Humanitarian Capacities

in Puntland

Humanitarian Affairs Disaster Management Agency(HADMA)

HADMA is the official agency set by the Puntland State Government to manage disasters. It was created afterthe Tsunami in 2005, and in 2011 it was equipped with a set of policies, strategies, contingency plans,response framework etc. On this front the theoretical framework of operations for HADMA is clear but it lacks

resources to implement its mandate and strategies.

At the time of writing, HADMA deals with a regular budget of $4,500 per month and 16 staff of which seven havesome humanitarian experience, skills or training. It does not have much logistical capacity and its means tocoordinate is very limited. Nevertheless it tried hard in the last drought response in 2011 and the tropicalcyclone of 2013,it has a certain degree of recognition within the rest of the humanitarian community.

Leadership is in the hands of a senior official and new generations are ready to take a more proactive role thatcould be very beneficial for HADMA.

Their capacity profile is as follows:


2.4 Analytical, strategizing,planning and programming

2.8 Communications, advocacy2.9 Risk management,institutional resilience

0

1

2

3

4

51.2 Leadership,


2.2 Humanresources

2.3 Logistics,

time management


management


structure and processes2.7 Networking3.1 Gender approach

3.2 Conflict sensitiveness,rights based approach


3.4 HIV/AIDS



control management


PUNTLAND HADMA

5.1 Organizational volume,financial capacity /autonomy,

sustained investment and evolutionhuman resources available

Figure 9


33/48


Local NGOs in Puntland

Puntland local NGOs have their own specificities with some of them having developed significant humanitarianexperience during the Tsunami 2004 response, although not all have translated that experience in capacitybuilding of the humanitarian sector.

In summary this is the analysis of the Local NGOs operating in Puntland based on the interaction with severalstakeholders, (ADESO, KAALO, ASAL, SFS, and other international actors).


1.Identity andMission

1.1

1.2

2.1

2.2

2. Managerial

Capacities

1. Values mandate.

2. Purpose.

3. Leadership.

4. Attitudes.

1. Finances.

2.Humanresources.

• Several LNGOshave developed aclear humanitarianmandate and abideto humanitarianprinciples. Theengagement inthe 2004 Tsunamiresponse was acritical positive

element for this.

• Some LNGOslike KAALO andINGOs like ADESOshow leadershipand can make a realcontribution topromote the role ofhumanitarianNGOs in Puntland.

• Some LNGOs have a

good financialvolume and reliablesystems oftransparentfinancialmanagement.

• Some diasporayoungprofessionals areengaging withLNGOs in Puntland

• Most LNGOs dohumanitarian work as areactive component oftheir regular developmentprojects.

• There are nothumanitariancomprehensivestrategies embedded in

their mandates.

• Most LNGOs are driven byprojects and donors’interests.

• Most of the LNGOs in

Puntland do not have anydegree of financialautonomy vis a vis INGOsor UN agencies.

• Turnover of staff in LNGOsis high, INGO and UNagencies drain someof the most qualified staffwithin LNGOs and local

2.2

2.7

3.0

2.3


34/48


35/48


2.7

2.8

2.9

12. Networkingand alliancebuilding.

13.Communications.

14. Advocacy.

15. Riskmanagement.

16. Institutionalresilience

• There are someinteresting NonState Actors forain Puntland.

• The NGOconsortium whichis led by a memberof KAALO createsa good basis fora future of morestrategiccoordination amongLNGOs.

• LNGOs’communicationscapacities are goodin Puntland.

• There is anemerging interestin developing a jointadvocacy agenda.

• Organisations likeSFS could play a

leading role in thisfront.

• Some LNGOs havestarted tohandoverresponsibilitiesto new generationswhich is verypromising in termsof institutionalevolution.

• Networking is mainly doneon project related basis.

• Coordination amongLNGOs is still veryweak, compared toInternationalcoordination or Local-Internationalcoordination.

• There is a lack of jointadvocacy agenda amongLNGOs that initially couldconsider points such as:• Accountability.• Mutual support and

cooperation.• Local ownership in

implementation ofprogrammes.

• Recognition of role andcapacities of LNGOs

• Effective humanitariancoordination.

• LNGO management ofleadership associatedrisks is good in contractwith what happens ingovernment structures.

3.2

2.5

2.2


3.1

3.2

3. Approach,Commitment

1. Genderapproach.

2. Conflictsensitivity.

3. Rights basedapproach.

• Gender agendahas been pickedup by most PuntlandLNGOs.

• LNGOs are aware ofconflictsensitivenessissues and managethis adequately.

• Rights basedapproach is adopted

by several LNGOsand linked togovernanceprogrammes.

• Gender balance indecision makingstructures within LNGOs isnot visible.

2.0

2.7 • There is not a maturedebate between Rightsbased approach andNeeds based approachwhen it comes tohumanitarian in practice.


36/48


4.1

4.2

5.1

3.3

3.4

4. TechnicalExpertise

5.- Size Capability

1. WASHcompetencies.

2. EFSLcompetencies.

3. Othercompetencies.

4. Standardscompliance &accountability.

5. Quality controlmanagement

1. Organisationalvolume.

2. Financialcapacity /autonomy.

3. Sustainedinvestment andevolution.

4. Humanresourcesavailable.

4. Connectedness,

Resilience & DRR

5. HIV/AIDS

• Some limitedhumanitariansectoral expertise is

owned by fewLNGOs.

• Knowledge ofSphere standarddoes exist within some membersof some LNGOs.

• Some LNGOs haveenough capacityin terms of funds,human resources,geographicalcoverage to haveenough criticalmass to startleading a processof the humanitariansector in

Puntland

• Humanitarian

programmes areembeddedinto developmentprogrammes.

• Some Organisationsdeal with HIV-AIDs.

• Specialised humanitariansectoral competenciesare not very high among

Puntland LNGOs.

• There is no evidence thatLNGOs do apply andmonitor consistentimplementation of SphereStandards and otherhumanitarian standardsin their humanitarian

activities.

• Almost none of the LNGOshave enough logisticalcapacity to engage inmajor humanitarianresponse operations bythemselves.

• There is not a clear

setting for DRRand resilienceprogrammes that willintegrate humanitarianprogrammes withdevelopment programmes.

• HIV-AIDS does not emergenaturally as a componentof the LNGOs programmes

1.7

1.8

3.0

3.3

1.0


5.2 5. Geographicaloutreach.

• Puntland Statecould be almostfully covered byLNGOs operatingthere.

• There are some gaps ofaccess or coverage in theborder conflict area withSomaliland.

1.8


37/48


2.4 Analytical, strategizing,

planning and programming

2.5 Programme management (incl.m & e), knowledge management

2.6 Governance and decisionmaking, organisational structure

and processes



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1.1 Values mandate, purpose


2.1 Finances

2.2 Humanresources

2.3 Logistics, timemanagement

2.7 Networking

2.8 Communications,advocacy

3.1 Gender approach


3.4 HIV/AIDS



PUNTLAND LNGOs' CAPACITIES


control management


investment and evolution, humanresources available

Figure 10


38/48


6 SOMALI HUMANITARIANPROFILE

Based on the aggregated organisational analysis and humanitarian context of the country, the Somalihumanitarian profile could be described as follows:

Organisational(Stakeholders)Analysis

Country Contextual Analysis

SOMALIHUMANITARIAN

COUNTRY PROFILE

Figure 11

GLOBAL CONTEXT CAPACITIES IN SOMALI territories

Humanitarian crises in Somali Territories• Each of the three described humanitarian areas (South Central, Somaliland and Puntland) have

different humanitarian crises contexts and should be treated with specific and differentiatedstrategies (Drought and conflicts are the most relevant threats).

• Rural vulnerability will be gradually replaced by urban vulnerability in several parts of thecountry (Drought and conflict major threats, will be gradually replaced by unemployment and urbanviolence threats).

The understanding of humanitarianism• These areas are still under an old paradigm of understanding humanitarian work as a “short intervention

to feed bodies”, rather than as full set of actions to save lives with dignity, reduce vulnerability,increase resilience and restore and protect rights of people affected by crises.

• Stereotypes of high efficiency of external “parachuted” international interventions are still dominant in thehumanitarian machinery operating with new emerging actors.

The humanitarian sector

• The humanitarian sector is fully dominated by UN agencies and international NGOs.• International actors’ rhetoric of building humanitarian local capacity are in many cases empty of real

content and reduced to a set of trainings and instrumentalisation of local NGOs which are subcontracted asimplementers particularly in the most risky areas.


39/48


• This is correlated with the perception of accountability and standards required: while risk is

transferred down to CBOs and LNGOs, accountability and quality requirements remain invariable, despite thehard context in which some LNGOs and most CBOs have to operate.

See graph below for a visualisation of this issue:

CommunityCBOs

LOCALNGOS

INGOs UNagencies

HIGHRISK Programme Delivery

Low Quality?

MEDIUMRISK

Programme

Delivery

Programme

Delivery

Medium Quality?

LOWRISK

High Quality?

Risk Transfer

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

UN

INGO

LNGO

CBOs

P e r c e i v e d

A c c o

u n t a b i l i t y

Perceived Quality

Perceived relation between Risk (size of bubble), Quality (X axis) and Accountability (Y axis)

Figure 12

Figure 13

• INGOs are still acting under the assumption that to be influential, power must be achieved by an aggressivegrowth strategy. This behaviour provokes a funding competition amongst INGOs and Local NGOs. This is often

used by large donors to drive their own agenda through the lure of funding.• When it comes to programme delivery there is an immoral cascade of transfer of risk from UN Agencies down

to community level, while quality is claimed to be always higher at UN and international level.

This can be visualised as follows:


40/48


It is assumed by doors and internatiional actors that as risk increases (size of bubbles), quality andaccountability shrinks. So most interantional actors and donors prefer to work in the safe areas, (even if this

has a clear impact on not saving lives), rather than working in the most difficult environments with risky andcomplex humanitarian access, which is “reserved” for LNGOs and CBOs.

Humanitarian responsibilities• The FGS, the Somaliland Government and the Puntland Government have not yet translated their

humanitarian responsibilities into an effective priority vis a vis their respective populations and inaccordance to international practices and IHL.

• As declared by several humanitarian actors, UN humanitarian mandated agencies are politically aligned withthe international political agenda of supporting the FGS and there is serious questioning about theirindependence and impartiality in regards to delivery of humanitarian aid and protection.

State authorities’ humanitarian capacity• The three State agencies in charge of humanitarian assistance in the three respective areas are not

equipped to deliver effective humanitarian coordination or direct response at this moment.This is due to four main factors: Lack of strong leadership at agency level

Lack of resources Lack of political priority for the humanitarian agenda by the respective governments

Lack of space given by UN agencies and INGOs.

Local Somali NGOs’ humanitarian capacity• Local Somali NGOs have been dependent on external conditional funding for over two decades coming

mainly from UN agencies via INGOs. Actually, several LNGOs were founded in 1992 after the collapse of theState, to channel UN funds and provide basic humanitarian assistance in Somalia. This dependency andpattern of relationship between LNGOs, UN and INGOs systems is still in place.

• Local NGOs are accused of lacking accountability and quality in delivery, according to internationalstandards. This does not match with the level of risk they are requested to assume.

• LNGOs humanitarian capacities analysis has been described in detail by region and it is still weak but withhigh potential if there is political will, leadership and trust/space by INGOs /UN to develop these capacities.

Role of INGOS• INGOs have a massive presence, but operational activities on the ground are inversely proportional to thelevel of security (“No security, No aid”).

• INGOs are amalgamated around the different States in the NGO Consortium which mainly deals with issuesrelated to the presence of INGOs and relations with their respective governments, rather than with acomplete humanitarian agenda.

• INGOs do not create incentives gradually to give space to LNGOs and State Agencies for them to assumetheir responsibilities.

i.ii.

iii.iv.


41/48


42/48


Puntland

• Puntland LNGOs should start a process of leading the humanitarian sector by making a strong network led bythose organisations with more capacity such as KA ALO and international organisations such as ADESO.

• INGOs working in Puntland need to acknowledge, give space and support in practice LNGOs that showleadership, enough capacity and potentiality evolve to become robust humanitarian NGOs. This should bedone beyond funding and training; including secondments and allowing LNGOs more space to implementtheir programmes.

• LNGOs together with HADMA, INGO and UN agencies should implement simple and reliable Early WarningMechanisms in Puntland that could be trusted by all actors and will facilitate a quick response whenneeded.

Local Humanitarian Capacity Objectives and

Indicators

The analysis presented above and related recommendations could generate a broad set of objectives in terms ofhumanitarian capacities to be achieved. Intentionally this has been reduced to a limited number of keyobjectives and indicators/milestones in order to make it manageable, understandable and straight forward in itsmonitoring.

This set of objectives and indicators are presented globally and should be adjusted in every geographical area inorder to ensure they are contextualised and owned by local actors. This should be done by the stakeholders whowill own the process and take into account the recommendations.

Objectives:HumanitarianCapacity to achieve

Progress Indicators Monitoring Mechanism

1. ACCOUNTABILITY:

LNGOs and StateGovernment Agencies(SGA) are accountable andtrusted by internationalstakeholders.

2. TIMELY RESPONSE:

LNGOs and SGAs are able torespond to humanitariancrises timely andefficiently.

1.1. A practical Partnership-AccountabilityFramework is developed and agreedby all humanitarian actors,( LNGOs,Governments, INGOs, UN, Donors) .

1.2. LNGOs and SGAs implement theaccountability framework.

1.3. There is an increase of humanitarianfunds going to LNGOs and SGAs.

2.1 There is an agreed “responseframework” (embedded in States’Contingency Plans and agreed withdonors and international actors),that facilitates rapid and timelyhumanitarian response by LNGOs andSGAs.

2.2 LNGOs build their own emergencyreserve funds, emergency logisticstocks and human resource surgecapacities.

A more enriched andbalanced NGO Consortiummonitors this quarterly.

Incorporated regularly in theClusters meeting agendas.

Monthly review.

NGO Consortium monitors thisquarterly.

Ad hoc impact responseevaluations.


43/48


44/48


Objectives:HumanitarianCapacity to achieve

Progress Indicators Monitoring Mechanism

4. HUMANITARIAN ACCESS:

Humanitarian assistance inconflict areas.

4.1 LNGOs and International humanitarianstakeholders address the issue ofhumanitarian access and riskmanagement and agree on aprotocol of action for negotiatinghumanitarian access.

4.2 Some reputed LNGOs are able tonegotiate principled humanitarianaccess with NSAG (Non State Armed

Groups) through mediation andacceptance of elders at communitylevel following the existing guidelineson engaging with NSAGa.

4.3 Humanitarian Aid reaches those inneed regardless the region they are in.

Ad hoc committee onSecurity Risk Managementand Humanitarian Accesscomposed of a reducednumber of representativesfor LNGOs, UN agencies andINGOs.

Strategies are shared andinformed with ICRC from

whom advice is sought.Ad hoc impact responseevaluations.

5. SECURITY RISKMANAGEMENT:

Security and risks are fairlyshared among all

humanitarian actors.Conditionality ofhumanitarian access bylack of security is reduced.

6. RESILIENCE AND DRR:

Development andhumanitarian programmesinclude DRR and resilienceapproach.

5.1 There is an agreed risk managementagenda among all humanitarianstakeholders to agree on threats andrisks for humanitarian actors, copingmechanisms and role of each actor

and ways of sharing risks jointly.

5.2 Risk factors are embedded in thePartnership-AccountabilityFramework.

6.1 A strategy to support small CommunityBased Organisations in theperformance of humanitarian aid isdeveloped and implementedin projects in each of the threedefined humanitarian regions.

6.2 Humanitarian programmes includealways a DRR and resilience approachand specific components.

The same ad hoc committeeon Security Risk Managementand Humanitarian Accesscomposed of a reducednumber of representatives

for LNGOs, UN agencies andINGOs.

Annual joint evaluationson DRR and resilience doneacross the NGO ConsortiumIncorporated regularly in theClusters meeting agendas.

Monthly review.

7. DIGNIFIEDHUMANITARAIN AID:

Somalia humanitariancommunity moves from anapproach of “saving humanbodies” to saving “dignified lives”.

7.1 Humanitarian programmes go beyondthe basic survival thematic areas ofwork: Food, Shelter, WASH, etc.,and include systematically otheraspects such as: Education, Societybuilding, Peace building etc as anintegral part of the humanitariandelivery.

7.2 Humanitarian action in urban contexts

is developed as a new specificapproach. This gives particularrelevance to youth and employment.

Specific ad-hoc group withinthe NGO consortium and withUN invited members tomonitor quality ofhumanitarian aid.


45/48


46/48


ANNEX 1 ORGANISATIONSINTERVIEWED

A total of 28 organisations were interviewed as follows:

Interviews held at Nairobi (10); 19t– 20 June 2014:Local NGOs (7):

• TARDO• CED• HIJRA• SADO• SOMALI AID• HARDO• DIAL

International NGOs (1):• Oxfam

International agencies (2):• UNICEF• ICRC

Interviews held at Hargeisa (Somaliland) (9); 21 – 23 June 2014:

Local NGOs (4):• HAVOYOCO• TA AKULO (Tasko)• HIRDA• CANDLELIGHT

International NGOs (2):• World Vision• NGO Consortium (international and national NGOs)

International agencies (2):• OCHA• WFP

Government State Agencies (2):• DMA (South Central Somalia)

• NERAD (Somaliland)

Interviews held at Garowe (Puntland) (9); 24 – 26 June 2014:Local NGOs (3):

• KAALO• ASAL• SFS

International NGOs (2):• CARE• ADESO

International agencies (2):• OCHA

• ICRCGovernment State Agencies (1):• HADMA (Puntland)


47/48


48/48

Oxfam Research Reports

Oxfam Research Reports are written to share research results, to contribute to public debate and to invitefeedback on development and humanitarian policy and practice. They do not necessarily reflect Oxfam policypositions. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Oxfam.For more information, or to comment on this report, email [email protected]

© Oxfam Novib April 2015

This paper was written by Fernando Almansa, independent consultant with Alexandra Chege, Ed Pomfret,Elizabeth Myendo, Kulmiye Hussein and Tilleke Kiewied of Oxfam. Oxfam acknowledges the assistance of NERAD,HADMA, DMA, Candlelight, HAVAYOCO, Hirda, TASCO, KAALO Relief and Development, ASAL, TARDO, Somali Aid,SADO, WASDA, HIJRA, HARDO, DIAL, SFS, World Vision, UNICEF Somalia, TAAKULO, NGO Consortium, CED, ASAL, WFPSomalia, OCHA Somalia, CARE Somalia, ICRC Somalia in its production. It is part of a series of papers written toinform public debate on development and humanitarian policy issues.

This publication is copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning,education, and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that allsuch use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, orfor re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, permission must be secured and a fee may becharged. E-mail: [email protected].

The information in this publication is correct at the time of going to press.Published by Oxfam, Country Office, Somalia. The Atrium, 3rd floor, Chaka Rd, Kilimani. P. O Box 491-00606Nairobi, Kenya. Tel: +254 20 282 000; Fax: +254 20 282 0105. Website: www.oxfam.org/somaliaFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/OxfaminSomaliaTwitter: @OxfamInSom

OXFAM

Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations networked together in 92 countries, as part of aglobal movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty:Oxfam America (www.oxfamamerica.org)Oxfam Australia (www.oxfam.org.au)Oxfam-in-Belgium (www.oxfamsol.be)Oxfam Canada (www.oxfam.ca)Oxfam France (www.oxfamfrance.org)Oxfam Germany (www.oxfam.de)Oxfam GB (www.oxfam.org.uk)Oxfam Hong Kong (www.oxfam.org.hk)

Oxfam India (www.oxfamindia.org)Oxfam Italy (www.oxfamitalia.orgOxfam Japan (www.oxfam.jpIntermón Oxfam (www.intermonoxfam.org)Oxfam Ireland (www.oxfamireland.org)Oxfam Italy (www.oxfamitalia.org)Oxfam Japan (www.oxfam.jp)Oxfam Mexico (www.oxfammexico.org)Oxfam New Zealand (www.oxfam.org.nz)Oxfam Novib (www.oxfamnovib.nl)Oxfam Québec (www oxfam qc ca)

Documents

A Fresh Analysis of the Humanitarian System in Somaliland, Puntland and South Central Somalia: Somali state agencies and local organisations’ capacities to manage humanitarian action