ASSESSMENT REPORT ON THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL NGOS IN by Samson Haile

ASSESSMENT REPORT ON THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL NGOS IN THE HUMANITARIAN ARCHITECTURE IN ETHIOPIA

November 2016

1. Introduction and Background In any emergency situations the affected communities are the first to respond with life-saving help. A significant amount of humanitarian assistance is delivered through local governments, community organizations, faith networks and local NGOs. In some areas affected by disasters these local actors have become more skilled at emergency preparedness and response whilst these skills may Shifting the Power Project Objectives be lacking in other areas. However this local capacity can be undermined, ignored or overwhelmed by international humanitarian actors who fail to recognize their role, particularly in large scale a) Local and National NGO partners in five disasters. Efforts to work with national and local actors do not play countries have the knowledge, skills, processa central role in the majority of international humanitarian work. es, and policies to prepare for and respond Accordingly various reform agendas have been born out of a wide- effectively to emergencies spread discontent with the current humanitarian response system. b) LNGOs are better represented and have a One of the prominent transformational initiatives is Start Network, stronger voice in relevant a coalition of more than 40 organisations working with 7000 partners in more than 200 countries and territories. The overall aim is to humanitarian platforms and networks transform the existing global humanitarian architecture and its way c) The consortium member INGOs recognise of working in order to make it more effective and accountable. and respond to LNGO capacity, leadership and Shifting the Power is one the fourteen projects of Start Network under the Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Programme (DEPP) funded by UK Aid to support the development of innovative solutions to disaster preparedness

voice d) Provide evidence of good practice in strengthening LNGOs humanitarian preparedness and response work and their role/

The aim is to support local actors to take their place alongside inter- influence in humanitarian action. national actors in order to create a balanced humanitarian system. It is led by six Start Network members - CAFOD, ActionAid, Tearfund, Concern Worldwide, Oxfam and Christian Aid. They are working with 55 of their local and national partners in five countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, DR Congo, Kenya and Ethiopia). CAFOD on behalf of the consortium agencies and the lead project coordinator in Ethiopia, commissioned this assessment to: a) map the humanitarian coordination architecture, mechanisms and platforms at national level, and in Oromia and SNNP Regional States; b) identify existing and potential challenges and opportunities in the humanitarian coordination mechanisms of the country for Local Non-Governmental Organisationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (LNGOs) meaningful participation and; c) make key recommendations to address the existing and potential challenges and seize the opportunities for meaningful participation of LNGOs. This work was a result of a qualitative study that included a desk review, a focus group discussion with the project technical working group, 39 interviews with leaders and experts of key humanitarian stakeholders, a participatory review and reflection session with leaders and experts of LNGOs and a validation discussion with stakeholders

2. Methodology and Process Method The overall purpose of the Assessment is to outline the country’s existing humanitarian architecture; identify opportunities and challenges thereof and their implication on meaningful participation of LNGOs as a means to determine the nature and scope of interventions required for improvement. The Assessment has employed a mix of qualitative methods and review of secondary sources. The specific objectives, essential information needed, sources of data and methods/tools are summarised below. Specific Objectives Map the humanitarian coordination architecture, mechanisms and platforms at national level; and in Oromia and SNNP Regional States including selected Zones and Woredas.

Identify existing and potential challenges in the humanitarian coordination mechanisms of the country for LNGOs’ meaningful participation;

Identify existing and potential opportunities in the humanitarian coordination mechanisms of the country for LNGOs’ meaningful participation;

Minimum Essential Information Needed Major actors of the humanitarian programme at national level and in Oromia and SNNP regional states including selected Zones and Woredas; relevant policies and guidelines with impact on humanitarian operations at national and regional levels; networks and platforms in humanitarian response at national and regional levels, their organisation, membership type, purpose and impact; roles of and interfaces among the various actors at national and regional levels (communities. LNGOs, local, regional and national governments, INGOs, UN and bilateral donors) Summary of challenges encountered or envisaged by humanitarian LNGOs emanating from either internal organisational dynamics or from interfaces with other players or platforms at various levels Summary of various opportunities identified to enhance the space, voice and effectiveness of LNGOs at all levels of decision and operation

Key Sources of Information -Policy documents, guidelines, MoUs, -Leaders, experts and practitioners within the Shifting the Power Consortium, Steering Committee and Partners including LNGOs; CSO/NGO networks, relevant sectors at National, Regional and Local government sectors; identified UN agencies and bilateral donors

Methods / Tools

-Policy documents, research papers, review or activity reports, -Leaders, experts and practitioners (listed above) -Policy documents, research papers, review or activity reports, -Leaders, experts and practitioners

Desk Review, KIIs and Focus group discussion (FGD), PRRS; Data analysis/ Desk Review, KII & FGD checklists Desk Review, KII, FGD, PRRS and Consultative Workshops, Data summary and analysis /Desk Review, KII and FGD checklists

Desk Review and Key informant interviews (KII)/Desk Review and KII checklist

Specific Objectives Make key recommendations to address the existing and potential challenges on meaningful participation of LNGOs in the country humanitarian coordination mechanism Make key recommendations on effective strategies to utilise the existing and potential opportunities for meaningful participation of LNGOs in the country humanitarian coordination mechanism

Minimum Essential Information Needed Major recommendations to address key challenges identified categorised by intervention type, level and actors

Key Sources of Information -Policy documents, research papers, review or activity reports, -Leaders, experts and practitioners

Major recommendations on strategies to expand and make use of identified opportunities categorised by intervention type, level and actors

-Policy documents, research papers, review or activity reports, -Leaders, experts and practitioners

Methods / Tools

Process and Limitations The assessment conducted an in-depth review of relevant documents both provided by the client and multiple other sources. A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with Shifting the Power Technical Working Group (TWG) members, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with 39 experts and/or leaders of stakeholders, a Participatory Review and Reflection (PRR) and Validation sessions were facilitated. While the majority of participants were eager in sharing their views and did so within the planned timeframe, there were challenges faced. One caveat repeatedly mentioned, particularly by many of the local implementing partners (LNGOs) and some consortium member International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGO) interviewed was the paucity of information on existing platforms or engagement thereof due to their poor (or no) involvement in the humanitarian system. This near total lack of knowledge or experience on the core issue of the assessment by key players of the project necessitated broadening of the scope of the investigation to look into involvement in the humanitarian response system in general rather than the extent of participation in platforms The type of people assigned for the interview by some institutions were not key players in the humanitarian work of their organisation and thus have less to offer in terms of specific information either on the existing architecture or its implications on the engagement of LNGOs in general or their organisation in particular. Triangulation through multiple informants and sources was employed to minimise information gaps. The other challenge was the over-stretched appointments provided by some key players, especially UN and bilateral agencies. While the team has tried to accommodate the extended timeframes by some key stakeholders, we also were conscious of the delivery timeframe for this assignment. To this effect we devised a parallel path of working on the output on consulted categories of stakeholders as the team wait for perspectives from those coming late.

3. Key Findings The Ethiopian Humanitarian Coordination Mechanism: Three key documents define the humanitarian terrain in Ethiopia in term of policy, process and players. The overarching provision is that of the Federal Constitution that obligates the government to take long-term preventive measures to avert disasters and provide timely assistance to victims. The second, National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management, provides direction for the kind of future Disaster Risk Management (DRM) system envisaged for Ethiopia. It marks ashift from response to a more comprehensive DRM with focus on full cycle – prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. It specifies structures with roles & responsibilities at federal and devolved levels. The third key document is the DRM Strategic Program and Investment Framework (DRM-SPIF) that maps the required program components of a comprehensive DRM system for Ethiopia and is a tool to translate the DRM Policy. A more routine and operational document is the annual humanitarian response plan document that details humanitarian needs, response strategies, response capacity and monitoring. It is published jointly by the government and the Ethiopia Humanitarian Country Team (EHCT). The dynamics of this national policy environment and the global humanitarian system combine to create a unique humanitarian architecture in Ethiopia both at national and devolved levels. Federal Humanitarian Architecture: The Ethiopian humanitarian coordination at federal level involves three tiers - Political, Strategic and Operational. Overall the coordination is led by the government and the supreme political organ, also referred to as the Federal Command Post, is the National Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Committee (NDPPC) led by Deputy Prime Minster and convenes all relevant ministers. The recently created national disaster risk management commission (NDRMC) is the government’s DRM coordination office that leads the more technical inter-ministerial team. Working along this state-only setup are two humanitarian structures – the joint stakeholder structures involving both government and humanitarian partners and non-state actors’ structures that includes donors, UN and NGOs. Both these arrangements in turn have strategic and operational teams. At strategic level, while the joint structure, referred to as the Federal DRM Technical Working Group is co-chaired by NDRMC and UN-OCHA, its non-state actors’ counterpart, EHCT is led by the humanitarian coordinator. The more operational sectoral taskforces enjoy joint leadership from government and stakeholders. Complementing this core architecture are other stakeholder-specific setups such as Humanitarian Resilience Donor Group (HRDG), humanitarian INGOs’ group (HINGO) and a representation of LNGOs by an NGO consortium, Consortium of Christian Relief and Development Association (CCRDA) at EHCT sessions.

Humanitarian Architecture in Oromia and Southern Regional States: The regional coordination replicates two of the three structures observed at federal level. The first comprises state-only structures at two levels. The political level, called the DRM Steering Committee or Command Post, is chaired by the Regional President and composed of Bureau Heads. The command post arrangement is devolved to the lowest level of government. Next is the Regional Technical Committee chaired by Deputy Regional President and consists of Line Bureaus. The joint stakeholder structures that engage both state and non-state stakeholders, also has two levels. The more strategic one is called the regional multi-stakeholder technical working group (TWG) that serves as an umbrella for the more operational and sectoral taskforces. Such joint structures are also active at more devolved levels (Zonal Administrations) in some hot spots. There are minor regional semantic differences in designation of coordination structures and their chairs.

Performance The federal level structures perform better than the devolved structures and at regional levels, the state-only structures meet more regularly than the joint platforms. In such times of peak humanitarian need, months may pass without TWG meeting. The state-only and joint stakeholder structures are not functionally linked at regional level. Nature of LNGOs and their Involvement in the Humanitarian System: LNGOs in Ethiopia mushroomed following the 1991 regime change and they emerged as integrated development organisations. Humanitarian work was done as isolated, event-driven project and has not been their core area of responsibility. The humanitarian terrain has thus been dominated by INGOs. Of the sixty-six partners identified in the 2016 humanitarian requirements document (HRD), only thirteen were LNGOs. This is miniscule compared to the more than two thousand registered LNGOs. The picture would be even worse if one compares them with their humanitarian INGO counterparts in terms of population served, geographic coverage or resource command. In addition, LNGOs rarely participate in national and regional platforms/networks. In a recent observation by the assessment team, there was no LNGO represented in a monthly federal joint agricultural taskforce (DRM-ATF) meeting attended by thirty-one institutions. The picture at regional levels is not any better and only a few LNGOs are active at zonal level. Some mentioned participating in grass root level emergency declaration meetings. Main reasons that LNGOs mention about their non-engagement include lack of knowledge about the existence, nature and benefits of platforms; non-relevance of the platforms in terms of the technical accessibility of the issues raised, geography of concern; and lack of incentives such as access to resources or capacity building. Other stakeholders consider these factors as excuses and they rather point to lack of leadership and long-term perspective from LNGOs.

LNGOs’ Humanitarian Capabilities and Capacity Building Initiatives: Despite recent efforts by some LNGOs to mainstream humanitarian work, system-wide preparedness is weak. Key policies such as human resource, finance and procurement lack humanitarian considerations. Recent multi-country comparative analysis on key humanitarian capabilities demonstrated that Ethiopian LNGOs lag far behind their counterparts in most parameters. Predominant stakeholder opinion about Ethiopian LNGOs’ capacity was not flattering. Most believe they carry high reputational risk (e.g. due to poor compliance) and they are not ready for prompt delivery during emergencies. Contrary to the global evidence about the benefits of local actors elsewhere, the Ethiopian LNGOs are considered small, dispersed, outreach copies of their INGO partners, and thus promise little added value. However, LNGOs see such a view about their capacity deficit as “too general and lacking objectivity”. Efforts at LNGO capacity building were mostly generic, brief, small in coverage (size and agenda), and project-specific. Recent large-scale CSO capacity building initiatives have failed to mainstream humanitarian capabilities Humanitarian Financing and LNGOs’ Access to Resources Almost all humanitarian work by most LNGOs is funded by INGO partners. The three main sources of humanitarian fund in Ethiopia are USAID/OFDA, ECHO and EHF. They all require fulfilling a complex eligibility criteria that includes due diligence and delivery capacity. In addition, ECHO requires a presence in one EU member country, OFDA demands US correspondence bank account and a functioning foreign currency bank account is mandatory for EHF. However, the directive of the National Bank of Ethiopia prohibits LNGOs from having a foreign currency bank account. Hence, sub-grantee status via INGOs is the dominant route to access humanitarian funds. Through a unique path in their history, only three LNGOs have met the criteria for directly accessing EHF. Since command over resources is also a major determinant in space and voice, LNGOs are at the bottom rung of the power ladder in the Ethiopian humanitarian system.

Opportunities and Challenges Opportunities Availability of multiple joint and non-state actorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; platforms at national, regional and, in some hotspots, at zone and Woreda levels is a huge asset open to LNGOs. The interest and encouragement by UN-Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to enhance LNGOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; engagement as demonstrated by inviting Consortum of Christian Relief & Development Associations (CCRDA), the largest NGO consortium, to represent local actors at EHCT, the highest non-state humanitarian body, was indicative of the will by other stakeholders. There are some, though very few, LNGOs who, either through meeting the stringent donor requirements or through networking as a result of regular presence in platforms, have accessed resources or are eligible. Their experience may show a path and the fact that CCRDA runs a foreign currency account that might be used to channel funds to LNGOs is worth exploring. From outside Ethiopia, there are developments and experiences worth looking into. The global push to localise aid, the donor interest to cut short the lengthy financing mechanism, the experience LNGOs in the global south accessing funds from their own governments are a few examples. There are past LNGO capacity development initiatives by some INGOs that may provide some learning. Currently, there large-scale multi-donor and long-term civil society capacity support initiatives that could be persuaded to mainstream key humanitarian capabilities into their generic schemes.

Challenges While the physical door for participation is open, they have been less accessible to LNGOs through a combination of factors such as limited understanding of the system â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the existence, nature or benefit of platforms. For those better informed about the architecture the issues discussed were too irrelevant to warrant investment of their lean staff. In terms of humanitarian capabilities there were deficits in experience and organisational preparedness (policies, strategies, expertise, logistics, reserve fund, etc.). Efforts to enhance capabilities of LNGOs so far have been uncoordinated and short-term. The current humanitarian system, being so risk-averse, has no mechanism for gradual exposure or a learn-by-doing scheme. On the other hand, LNGOs were not willing to come out of their traditional comfort zone or were slow to change to balance their long-term development orientation with preparedness for humanitarian work. The pressure by the government on INGOs to do direct implementation rather than fund LNGOs is threatening their access to key available pool fund. The legal requirement that all networking and capacity building costs fall under the 30% administrative category discourages investment in these key areas. The legal barriers on civil society, the complex donor requirements, the prohibition on foreign currency bank account, and the increasing competition for funds with the more resourceful INGOs has forced LNGOs in Ethiopia down the resource and policy dialogue pecking order.

4. Conclusion and Key Recommendations Conclusion The key areas of concern, consensus and contention shared and discussed during the assessment revolve around six main issues. Relevance (of LNGOs to the Ethiopian HRS on the one hand, or that of the interventions so far to build local capacity on the other hand); capacity of LNGOs to meaningfully engage in and contribute to the HRS as well as the deficits thereof; financing of LNGOs and conditionality of access; modalities for collaboration, learning and collective voice; learning from missed opportunities and positioning to make use of existing or emerging ones; and, finally the issue of building evidence to learn and persuade others on the value-addition of investing in local systems and capabilities. These are briefly summarised below to capture the spirit of the assessment results. Relevance The issue of relevance has been raised from both ends of the humanitarian power spectrum. Some donors and UN agencies believe that the Ethiopian NGOs are too dispersed, too small and unprepared for humanitarian response. Because of this, the risk of inefficiency and erosion of trickle-up reputation to the supply-side stakeholders is too big to ignore. They say it is safe and more efficient to work through the relatively strong government and INGO systems. LNGOs and, to a lesser extent, some donors and INGOs, hold a different view, though with varying nuances. There are those who say the capacity deficit and the reputational risk agendas are to a large extent excuses to maintain the status quo whereby LNGOs continue as less relevant and insignificant players. Others claim this perspective, despite some truth, must be challenged with a better longer-term vision of collectively addressing the gaps. They encourage the knowledge in identified gaps to be considered as a helpful stepping stone to build a capable and locally owned and led humanitarian system instead of using it to justify external dominance. Capacity There are deep and multiple deficits in information, systems, funding and staff knowledge and skills, negatively affecting humanitarian preparedness and thus engagement of LNGOs in HRS. The views on the extent of capacity deficits are mixed. Some LNGOs have convictions that their humanitarian preparedness is better than some INGOs, although there is consensus on the need for targeted and long-term investment to enhance capacity of LNGOs in Ethiopia. Financing The globally set prerequisites of such as owning a foreign currency account, having an office in an EU member country and fulfilling other due diligence and programme capability standards were raised. While some are agreed as necessary conditions of ensuring efficiency and accountability,

some are seen as modifiable impediments that block LNGOs. Innovative financing modalities that expand access while respecting the existing rules were also suggested. Networking for Collective Voice While there are efforts at LNGO representation, the current level of channelling their issues to decision forums and feedback to inform collective and individual organisational adjustments at national and regional levels are unsatisfactory. Moreover, the legal-political context makes it harder to form a new platform for humanitarian LNGOs. Existing and Emerging Opportunities There is an overwhelming positive attitude towards better and more effective role for LNGOs in Ethiopia through building their core humanitarian capabilities, coalition building, enhanced access to resources and decision forums. There are parallel civil society capacity building initiatives (e.g. CSSP, ESAP) focusing on generic organisational systems and staff knowledge and skills. In a country such as Ethiopia, prone to recurrent emergencies, such investments may need to be persuaded to mainstream humanitarian capabilities. Building Evidence for Learning and Lobbying While globally the evidence for and conviction in the value-addition of local actors exists, the same cannot be said about Ethiopian LNGOs. Many doubt whether engaging small and isolated LNGOs will yield the same benefits observed in other parts of the world. In addition there are policy and practice bottlenecks emanating from government (mainly 70/30), donors, the UN and INGOs that require dialogue supported by hard evidence.

Recommendations The way forward listed below follows stakeholder categories as the lead actors in some interventions. Obviously interventions on most issues involve multiple stakeholders addressing an aspect thereof, thus requiring a coordinated joint effort. For instance, advocacy and lobbying, financing, training, restructuring, strategy and policy revisions are some of the different facets where different players within the humanitarian system take the lead in an area of their comparative advantage. This may require some key players to come together to share complementary tasks and define specific timeframe for interventions.

Local NGOs i. Organisational and Systems Preparedness: As discussed, many of the LNGOs are tuned more towards integrated community development and thus their systems and resources are less amenable to humanitarian response. Initial rapid intervention in ensuring minimum essential humanitarian preparedness in leadership, strategies, policies, HR and procurement processes will instil confidence in LNGOs for efficient planning, resource mobilisation and response. This will enhance better understanding of the humanitarian system and encourage engagement on humanitarian agenda and platforms. The leadership of LNGOs should be assisted to consider integrating humanitarian content in their internal systems. Such transition will help LNGOs attain better trust from INGOs and donors through improving their compliance with core humanitarian accountability requirements. Hence, LNGOs need to develop a clear plan, commit the leadership and work towards verifiable continuous improvement on agreed minimum humanitarian standards to foster trust among stakeholders.

ii. Humanitarian LNGOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Forum: Modelled on HINGO, preferably with a standing representation in or link with HINGO and/or EHCT. This will be where LNGOs share experience, discuss concerns, shape agendas to be channelled to other decision forums and platforms. The existing but currently weak initiatives by CCRDA and ECSF must be reviewed and revitalised with clear mandate from LNGOs and enhanced coordination capacity. The ten LNGOs who are the local implementing partners of this project must commit themselves to immediately kick start the LNGOs humanitarian forum and lead by example in terms of regular attendance and promoting collective agenda. While coordinated participation through LNGOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; forums is a preferable approach at federal and regional levels, individual LNGOs might benefit more from directly engaging and influencing decentralised platforms in their areas of operation.

Similar efforts at setting up or strengthening forums for humanitarian LNGOs at regional and zonal level is necessary. Partners of the Shifting the Power project should also consider forming a consortium at regional and zonal level. iii. Visibility and Image of LNGOs: There might not be incentives for LNGOs in terms of contributing to the humanitarian discussions and access to financial resources in the short-term. However, their presence in humanitarian meetings enables them to get more information on the humanitarian system, network with vital decision makers, promote their work and share their challenges and opportunities. Image building is another important area that needs the concerted effort of LNGOs. This may include documenting and sharing their contributions, value additions and best practices.

International NGOs i. Invest in Capacities: There are three complementary dimensions to this: Fast-track investment on some of the identified capacity deficits (focusing more on skills, organisational systems and governance), support the establishment and running of LNGOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Humanitarian Network, preferably through reviewing and revitalising the CCRDA- led steering committee. This could be an immediate intervention by consortium members. The capacity development support should be needs based, and employ other more effective methods such as mentoring and secondment, instead of just conventional training.

The other intermediate and longer-term humanitarian capacity building intervention requires consortium members to lobby for mainstreaming of humanitarian core capabilities into ongoing multiple large scale civil society capacity building initiatives such as CSSP.

Using the long term empowerment of REST and Ethiopian Catholic Church Social and Development Coordination Office of Harar (ECC-SDCOH) as an example, the existing practice of sub-grantee relationship with LNGOs can be redesigned to incorporate organisational mentoring aimed at ensuring graduation of some LNGOs to be able to qualify for direct funding. Champion LNGO candidates can be identified through the existing OCHA assessment system.

These can then be linked with capable humanitarian INGOs who will be tasked with mentoring their local partners all the way to maturity, thus replacing the conventional sub-grantee scheme. ii. Handholding and coaching to expose LNGOs to existing platforms: The Assessment found that LNGOs are not represented in humanitarian meetings, humanitarian need assessments and resource allocation and management processes. The Shifting the Power consortium member INGOs should enable their partner LNGOs to participate in humanitarian meetings with government, INGOs and donors. This includes assisting LNGOs to be actively represented and engaged at micro and macro level emergency related discussions and decision making processes. iii. Advocacy for LNGO Space and Voice: Evidence-based lobby for:

Representation of humanitarian LNGOs (preferably through their network or revitalised CCRDA) at various platforms (e.g. HINGO, EHCT/Clusters),

Reduction of barriers/conditionalities and improve access to resources. LNGOs have limited window of opportunity to influence polices and resource allocation of humanitarian donors. INGOs can bridge this gap as they have inbuilt relationship with humanitarian donors.

iv. Networking: LNGOs should be assisted to initiate and sustain a humanitarian network or coalition of their own that will give them a collective voice to present their views as a group to government and emergency donors. Creating a new coalition might be complicated considering the 70/30 issue and the preference by some to make better use of existing networks. It is thus helpful to explore ways of reinvigorating the CCRDA or ECSF representation. These two have representative structures, though not that strong. CCRDA has had a vast humanitarian history and holds a foreign currency account which can be used to channel pooled funds for humanitarian capacity and response.

UN and Bilateral/Multilateral Donors

Walk the talk in localising aid through harmonisation of systems/ requirements and thus reduction of barriers to enhance access to LNGOs, while ensuring minimum standards to uphold their transparency, account ability and efficiency;

Identify and invest in long-term and strategic humanitarian capacities of LNGOs

Create an environment and provide incentives that promotes the involvement of LNGOs in humanitarian policy discussions and decisions and interventions in the country;

Humanitarian donors should push INGOs to work in collaboration with LNGOs, such as consortium approach, and providing resources and capacities to LNGOs as sub-grantees with a vision of transforming local capacity;

Establishing a separate national pooled funddedicated to LNGOs that can be invested in building the capacity of LNGOs and to enable them to directly engage in emergency preparedness and response interventions.

The resource for the fund may be mobilised from Shifting the Power partners and donor agencies, and administered by existing consortium like CCRDA or a network of humanitarian LNGOs if such is realised. The fund can be used flexibly: (a) to build the capacity of LNGOs, e.g. for rapid assessment of humanitarian needs, proposal development and emergency response; and (b) to provide rapid emergency response grant for LNGOs. The fund can also be used as entry point to create a platform that will enable LNGOs to discuss humanitarian issues, exchange experience and share emergency response responsibilities

Donors should push INGOs to enhance the capacity of LNGOs that should include skill development, coaching and sub-granting LNGOs.

Platforms and Networks (ECSF, CCRDA, HINGO)

CCRDA and Ethiopian Charities and Societies Forum (ECSF) to review the reasons for the current sub-optimal engagement of LNGOs in existing steering committee structures created under each and ensure their meaningful presence at national and regional platforms.

Humanitarian International NGOs (HINGO) should revisit its ToR to create space for and encourage LNGOs’ engagement. It must take the lead in this respect, in addition to sharing its experience of interacting with donors, UN and the government.

Creating enabling environment that promotes LNGOs’ engagement in humanitarian programmes. Collaborative advocacy should be done with the coordination of the ESCF to ease the interpretation of the law and the definition on administration cost within the 30/70 ratio as this will enable LNGOs to get more technical and financial support from donors. It may also be necessary to have periodic (e.g. biannual) joint meetings between humanitarian LNGOs’ forums and HINGO. CCRDA and ECSF, or another forum of LNGOs, should seek ways of documenting the contribution of LNGOs to the development and humanitarian endeavours in the country and sharing the evidence with stakeholders, including government and donors.

national Partners in Ethiopia:

Address: CAFOD / SCIAF / Trรณcaire P O Box 1875, Addis Ababa, Gulele Subcity, Swaziland Street, Enqulal Fabrika, Ethiopian Catholic Bishops Conference Centre Tel: +251-(0)11-278-8843/44/45 Fax: +251-(0)11-278-8846 Email: reception@cst-together.org Website: www.trocaire.org / www.cafod.org.uk / www.sciaf.org.uk