CAP 2011 Guidelines

KEY POINTS
 Why are you making a consolidated appeal – what is a humanitarian strategy, its
added value and its purpose? The strategy presents an overall humanitarian goal or
vision, then states how that will be achieved, considering resources and constraints. It
aims to make the actions of the many organizations on the ground greater than the sum
of their parts; to make the best use of limited resources; and to seize opportunities to
move towards a long-term resolution and recovery. It maps and prioritizes needs; it
matches capacity with needs to ensure full coverage; it attains effectiveness (filling gaps)
and efficiency (eliminating duplication and use of resources on low priorities); it
capitalizes on comparative advantages; it seizes opportunities for synergy, reducing aid
dependence, avoiding the deepening or relapse of a crisis, and attacking inter-related
problems; it anticipates future needs and opportunities, and positions the humanitarian
country team to respond to or pre-empt future problems. This strategy is the essence of
the CAP.
 CAPs should be thorough but concise. They can summarize and refer to more
detailed information available elsewhere. Make your 2011 CAP less text-heavy – use
tables, charts, graphics, and links to on-line resources to tell the story, present the
evidence and outline the plan. Make your document visually appealing – see the on-line
Best Practices page (items 9-12) for examples of good graphics.
 Present the needs clearly, with evidence for each. Cluster/sector response plans
should use tables, matrices or maps to show the needs and who is proposing to cover
which needs where.
 State clearly the boundaries of need and response for your CAP. Most CAPs take
place in situations of generalized vulnerability and impaired social services. Aid
organizations can’t cover them all, so the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) and the
humanitarian country team (HCT) should draw the boundaries strategically. These
boundaries can be geographic, demographic, derived from clusters/sectors, temporal, or
based on finer measurements of vulnerability – whatever combination serves best in
your context to draw the line between what the HCT must achieve and what is
secondary.
 Every CAP must be prioritized. This means that each project should receive a priority
designation (applying at least a simple two-step system) through peer review in the
clusters/sectors, following general priority criteria agreed by the HCT.
 All organizations proposing projects in the CAP should upload their draft projects
onto the Online Projects System (OPS). (Cluster/sector coordinators should volunteer
to upload projects for their members with poor connectivity.) Clusters/sectors peer-
review the projects by viewing them on OPS, select those to be included in the CAPs,
prioritize them, and apply the gender marker code for those CAP countries piloting the
gender marker (Chad, Haiti, Kenya, oPt, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Zimbabwe).
After review by the HC and agency HQs, the projects are published electronically on
FTS. A compendium of projects can be downloaded in printable PDF format.
 Writing tip: each paragraph should have a beginning, middle and end. The
beginning introduces the paragraph’s subject. The middle presents all key facts and
arguments. The end makes clear the point of the paragraph. (If you cannot define the
point of the paragraph, consider omitting it.)
ii
Guideline table of contents
PART I: GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED

APPEAL ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1. THE CAP AS A COMMON CYCLE OF HUMANITARIAN ACTION ...................................... 1
2. NEEDS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 3
3. DEVISING A HUMANITARIAN STRATEGY ............................................................................. 7
4. STATING STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND MONITORING .................................................. 8
5. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS ............................ 13
PART II: BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND POLICY ON SUBSTANTIVE &

TECHNICAL ISSUES ........................................................................................................................ 18
1. ROLE OF THE HC IN THE CAP ............................................................................................... 18
2. THE CLUSTER SYSTEM AND CAPS ..................................................................................... 18
3. THE ROLE OF OCHA IN THE CAP PROCESS .................................................................... 26
4. OVERVIEW OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE CAP PROCESS................. 27
5. NGOS AND CAPS ...................................................................................................................... 28
6. COHERENCE OF THE CHAP AND PROJECTS .................................................................. 29
7. PROJECTS AND THE ON-LINE PROJECTS SYSTEM (OPS) .......................................... 29
8. EARLY RECOVERY IN CAPS .................................................................................................. 36
9. THE GENDER MARKER INITIATIVE ...................................................................................... 37
10. USEFUL LINKS ........................................................................................................................... 39
11. CONTACT US .............................................................................................................................. 39
PART III: APPEAL DOCUMENT TEMPLATE .......................................................................... 40
CAP 2011 Guidelines: Document version 1.0, 18 August 2010
iii
iv
GUIDELINES FOR THE 2011 CONSOLIDATED APPEALS
PART I: GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT

OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL
1. THE CAP AS A COMMON CYCLE OF HUMANITARIAN

ACTION
GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

OCHA and the IASC are expected to produce a consolidated appeal document once a year for
major crises: stakeholders need an organized snapshot and analysis. But the appeal is ineffective
if the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) treats it as a one-off document-writing exercise – and the
humanitarian response is likely to be ineffective too. The Consolidated Appeal Process comprises
the whole programme cycle of humanitarian action: needs assessment and analysis, joint planning
The CAP as a common cycle of humanitarian action

and strategizing, resource mobilization and allocation, and monitoring and evaluation. The annual
document publication is a milestone to focus the analyses and decisions that these four elements
entail, and it presents a frame of reference for monitoring the success of humanitarian action on a
collective crisis-wide level.
These guidelines therefore contain a document template (in Part III), but they start with guidance
on the substance that constitutes that appeal process and must go into an appeal document. The
processes and analyses that produce the substance must start far in advance of the CAP
document due date.
1.
PART I:
See the next page for a suggestive chart which places the elements of the programme cycle,
including the CAP development season, on an annual timeline.
1
PART I: GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL
1. The CAP as a common cycle of humanitarian action
2
2. Needs analysis
This is the essential starting point of coordinated humanitarian action, and a crucial section
of your CAP document, where you will need to convince donors to allocate millions of
dollars to your crisis – and moreover to allocate it according to the priority needs that you
identify here. This section must show solid evidence and solid reasoning.
TIMING:

In the 2010 CAP Mid-Year Reviews, each HCT should have presented a plan for needs
assessments to be done in the period between the MYR and the 2011 CAP development season,
to fill crucial information gaps in order to base the 2011 CAP on comprehensive information.
Those assessments should be completed by about the end of August. The HCT then finalizes the
needs analysis for the CAP as early as possible in the process – about mid-September – to provide
the basis for agreeing on strategic priorities. (Needs analysis is the step in which the HCT
synthesizes the sector-specific needs assessment data into a strategic view of the interactions of
needs and of their root causes.)
PURPOSE:
The needs analysis should explain the major humanitarian consequences of the crisis and how
they are inter-linked. The section should:
 Present priority humanitarian needs overall (not just those needs that will be addressed
through the projects listed in this appeal – though the CAP should cover as many of those as
possible).
Needs analysis
 Using the hierarchy of causes and outcomes illustrated in the Needs Analysis Framework
(NAF), reproduced at the end of this section, analyze the humanitarian needs, rank their
urgency, and identify the interactions among their causes across clusters/sectors. (The HCT
and individual responding agencies will have to understand the inter-relations to design their
programmes right.)
 Analyse the main outcomes of the humanitarian crisis, such as mortality and morbidity rates.
Elaborate on the factors behind the basic humanitarian statistics (the ones presented in the
box after the executive summary). Show how data differ among specific groups (e.g.
women, girls, boys and men, the displaced, refugees, host populations) and/or geographic
2.
regions. Present data in a table or chart.
Needs analysis should be evidence-based, inter-agency and multi-sectoral (drawing on needs

assessments which are usually cluster/sector-specific) and include reference to the integration of
cross-cutting issues).
METHODOLOGY:
Several methodologies exist to analyse priority needs. Certain countries have been using a set of
key indicators with related thresholds to triage and map needs and vulnerabilities, establish inter-
sectoral strategic priorities, and identify humanitarian actions that should cover all priority areas.
This seems to be particularly effective and necessary when the crisis is one of extreme chronic
vulnerability and poverty where the humanitarian caseload must be distinguished from the
PART I:
generally poor and vulnerable population, without a clear trigger like conflict or sudden disaster.
See best practice here:

 West Africa 2010
 Democratic Republic of Congo 2010
PROCESS MANAGEMENT:
Step 1:
► Cluster/sector leads should compile, review and organize their cluster/sector the needs
assessment data using their sector’s part of the NAF or a similar mechanism for sound
3
needs analysis. Assessment information can be complemented by surveys, contingency

plans, monitoring reports, government data, academic research, or the like, and referenced
accordingly. Clusters/sector leads should identify a set of key indicators and thresholds used
to assess the priority needs in their sector.
► Cluster/sectors should provide a list of all the needs assessments on which this CAP is based,
which OCHA will compile for the CAP document’s Annex II. If information is unavailable (for
example because of insecurity) or unreliable, explain why, and what is being done to improve
information.
 Output 1: Clusters/sectors complete the needs analysis for their cluster/sector, provide an
evidence base for their analysis and complete a needs assessment reference list for their
cluster/sector.
Step 2:
► OCHA reviews the cluster/sector inputs, analyzes the inter-relations of needs and causes
across sectors, and drafts a needs analysis document. This document should provide the
basis for the CAP workshop and be circulated beforehand. At the CAP workshop, the HCT
should reach agreement on what the priority needs are, leading to decisions about the
strategic objectives for humanitarian response.
 Output 2: OCHA elaborates a consolidated needs analysis document and the HCT agrees on
a common understanding of what the priority needs and inter-relations of needs are across
Needs analysis
clusters/sectors which needs to be addressed in the CAP.
KEY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER IN THE NEEDS ANALYSIS:
1. What are the priority needs for humanitarian assistance and protection in this crisis and why?
(Remember: at this stage, focus on NEEDS, not the HCT’s plans to respond to those needs.
The response to needs will be covered in Section 4.)
2. How are the priority needs related to one another?
2.
3. What factors are placing additional and possibly different risk on people (women, girls, boys
and men)? What are the risks?
4. What is the demography of the country, and what are the most vulnerable groups? Present
this information in a table or chart if possible, disaggregated by sex and age. Please
disaggregate beyond sex and age if necessary, i.e. livelihood groups, regions, ethnic
minorities, etc.
5. What inequalities could put certain groups at additional risk (e.g. gender, racial, religious,
age)?
6. What are the levers (economic, social, institutional) that will enable the provision of an
effective and prioritized support to the affected communities in their attempt to recover from
the crisis as early as possible?
7. Recognising that needs and risks may differ across demographic groups (e.g. women, the
PART I:
elderly, IDPs, children), what are the specific needs and risks of such groups in this particular
context?
8. Identify cultural and religious specificities.
9. What information gaps exist, and how does the HCT plan to fill them?
10. Donors reserve humanitarian funds for needs that can’t be met in time by development or anti-
poverty programmes. Argue clearly here why needs you identify here cannot be met in time
by development aid.
4
Your analysis should take into account the following elements:

 governance (including political situation, crisis context, national response capacity, and
aspects of the regional and international context);
 existing coordination mechanisms;
 the situation of security and rule of law (in particular law enforcement);
 demographics and economic context;
 socio-cultural context (including human development index, social stratification and gender
analysis);
 socio-economic patterns (livelihoods, community infrastructure, coping mechanisms);

 physical environment;
 root causes of conflict/tension;
 availability of natural resources used to meet humanitarian needs;
 environmental impacts;
 availability of natural resources expected to be in high demand to meet recovery needs.
Vulnerability can also relate to an individual’s or group’s age (young and old), ethnicity, location,
disability, chronic illness, etc. See page 4 of the NAF for more detailed guidance on these.
INTEGRATION OF CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES:

CAPs (and the humanitarian action that they reflect) should deal with a range of cross-cutting
issues. Do not leave them until the last minute and try to add them to the text as an after-thought.
Instead, communicate now with the cluster/sector coordinators (copying the HC) and make sure
they are incorporating them into their cluster/sector response plans, and encouraging their
Needs analysis
members to incorporate them in project design. The HCT may also decide that one or more cross-
cutting issues is so critical in your particular crisis that addressing it rises to the level of a strategic
objective for the CAP.
Each CAP should in the needs analysis:
 Integrate a gender analysis throughout the CHAP and include projects that respond to
different needs of men and women, girls and boys. 1
 Disaggregate data by sex and age.
2.
 Include protection and human rights in your analysis and response.
 Explain implications of access and security on your assessment of needs and your
response.
plus any other situation-specific cross-cutting issues.

PART I:
1 Please note that data should be sex- and age-disaggregated data throughout the analysis. Check the IASC Gender Handbook in
Humanitarian Action here.
5
PART I: GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL
2. Needs analysis
6
3. Devising a humanitarian strategy

TIMING: Strategy development follows needs analysis, and therefore in the humanitarian
programme cycle it should come early in CAP development season (approximately the first half of
September).
PROCESS MANAGEMENT: Strategy development should be consultative and consensual; but on

the other hand, writing a strategy by committee is more likely to produce a diluted laundry list than

a coherent, incisive strategy. (See below for common pitfalls in strategy statements.) Some
leadership is probably needed, so the HC should designate an experienced senior humanitarian to
draft a strategy for discussion with the broader HCT.
WHAT IS A HUMANITARIAN STRATEGY? CAPs are supposed to bring a strategic dimension to

coordinated humanitarian action. The HC is supposed to ensure that a humanitarian strategy is in
place. OCHA is supposed to support this. But “humanitarian strategy” has never been clearly
defined, so these guidelines will try to do so.
A humanitarian strategy states a long-term goal, 2 and then states how the HCT will achieve that
goal (or part of it in 2011) in that environment with available or expected resources, capacities and
Devising a humanitarian strategy

access. It should state clear decisions on the dilemmas pertaining to humanitarian action in that
crisis, and it should specify what it is relying on non-humanitarian actors or mechanisms (like
UNDAF) to achieve as part of a durable resolution of the humanitarian crisis.
Why is this important? Because humanitarian response never has ideal conditions – it always
lacks some resources, some capacity, some access. Therefore there are dilemmas to be resolved,
and priorities to be identified. Someone has to make a plan that brings the pieces together in a
way that is more than the sum of their parts. Also, we say ‘humanitarian response,’ but we don’t
want to always be responding – we want to get ahead of the curve sometime and lead the situation
out of crisis. Some countries have had CAPs for ten years in a row. A situation that long-lasting
needs a plan that is not merely reflexive, but which gets on top of the crisis.
None of the following is a strategy:

 a list of the activities and aims that each organization or cluster is doing individually.
 a mission statement, like “save lives by delivering life-saving assistance to the most
vulnerable…”
 a statement of the methods or tools in our toolbox: like “immediate relief for those in need,
protection for those who are threatened, early recovery to restore self-sufficiency.” Tools or
3.
methods by themselves are not a strategy.
To illustrate the point with a simple example, imagine the owner of a football team asking the
manager to state her/his strategy for the next match. “Win the game and advance to the next
round” – that’s a mission statement, not a strategy. “Attack and defend successfully” – that’s a
platitude. “Pass the ball cleanly and score lots of goals” – these are self-evident tactics, not a
strategy. The strategy needs to state how you will achieve the aim or the mission with expected
PART I:
resources. “Play an entirely defensive game to achieve a scoreless draw, and then win on
penalties” – that’s more like a strategy. “Play defensively and provoke Wayne Rooney into getting
a red card, then attack” – that’s more of a strategy. “Attack on the left side, because their left
defender has a bad knee” – that could be part of a strategy. A game strategy must state how we
will win the game, given our capacities and those of the other team.
Obviously, there are limits to the extent that you can strategize, because humanitarian actors
usually don’t have much control over the environment that is causing humanitarian needs,
2 Example from Haiti Earthquake Revised Humanitarian Appeal (February 2010): “The overarching humanitarian objective is to provide
an environment for safe and healthy living for all affected people until reconstruction restores normality.”
7
especially where conflicts exist. But this makes it all the more important to be strategic, not just
responsive.
One important aspect of a strategy is that it is as much about what you will not do as what you will
do. A strategy that says we will do everything is not a strategy, because resources and capacity are
finite, and access is imperfect. Strategy has a lot to do with identifying the priorities, whereas CAPs
are developed by consensus, which can make it difficult to state what you will not do, or what is
lesser priority. But HCs and HCTs have to try.
For protracted crises, you can state a multi-year strategy in a CAP that has 12-month projects and
objectives. This is consistent with basic organizational planning – combining a long-term vision with
a shorter-term work plan and objectives towards that vision.
Best practice in strategy statement:

 Haiti Earthquake Humanitarian Appeal, Mid-Year Review (July 2010)
Stating strategic objectives and monitoring
4. Stating strategic objectives and monitoring

TIMING: Articulating strategic objectives, choosing relevant indicators, and assigning responsibilities
for monitoring the indicators should come after strategy development. In the CAP calendar, this
usually corresponds to the second half of September.
PROCESS MANAGEMENT: Like strategy development, articulating strategic objectives etc. is

difficult to do by committee. The HC should assign an experienced humanitarian to make a first draft
for broader consultation.
WHAT IS A “STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE”? Taken together, the strategic objectives are measurable
parts of how we will achieve goals, given operational and resource constraints. A strategic objective
has to be specific enough to help you focus the response – decide what and what not to do. That
specificity can be given in various ways, depending on what makes sense in the context:
cluster/sector-based, status-based, geographic, demographic. A strategic objective is not a
statement of obvious imperatives or mission, like “meet the needs of the most vulnerable people.”
A. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
State first the boundaries of this CAP. Most CAPs take place in situations of generalized
vulnerability, impairment of basic services, and developmental neglect. In these conditions,
4.
humanitarian need can be detected almost anywhere in the country, and there is usually not enough
funding or capacity among the humanitarian organizations to address them all. The HC and HCT
therefore have to set the boundaries of needs and response at the outset of the appeal process (after
needs analysis). These boundaries can be geographic, demographic, deriving from clusters/sectors,
temporal, or based on finer measurements of vulnerability – whatever combination serves best in
PART I:
your context to draw the line between what the HCT must achieve and what is secondary.
The boundaries and strategic objectives should reflect the fact that a primary purpose of the
humanitarian strategy is to act on and ‘direct’ the course of events as much as possible towards
sustainable resolution. This should take into account the possibility of seizing any opportunity for
recovery, through institutional and livelihood support for the relevant communities. (See Part II,
Section 6 of these guidelines for more on early recovery in CAPs.)
After setting the boundaries, state clearly and succinctly the overarching (usually inter-sectoral)
strategic objectives for humanitarian action. The objectives should be expressed as SMART:
8
specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound within the appeal period (usually 12
months).
MAKE SURE YOUR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES HAVE THESE QUALITIES:

• They state the (feasible) results that you must achieve (expressed as humanitarian
impact, or actions necessary to enable humanitarian operations).
• They are specific enough to help you focus the response and differentiate between
what relates to it and what doesn’t.
• They are clear and compelling enough to persuade organizations to change their

programming, and donors to change their funding, if necessary, to achieve them.
• They reflect the gender-specific needs of women, girls, boys and men, as identified by
a gender analysis.
Follow the strategic objectives with explanatory text that answers these key questions:
 How will the strategic objectives for response promote gender equality and address the
needs of specific groups at particular risk (such as women, girls, boys and men, older

people, people with disabilities, IDPs or people affected by HIV/AIDS, etc.)?
 What are the key population groups, regions, and clusters/sectors of the overall response?
 Describe which needs are being addressed by the affected country government and other
actors, and how this leaves gaps which the organizations in this appeal will fill. (Cluster
response plans should further detail this for each sector.)
 What actions relevant to humanitarian strategy are planned in other strategic programming
tools such as national recovery plans, CCA/UNDAF, World Bank Poverty Reduction
Programmes, or bilateral aid programmes? Be specific – for example, “This zone will
receive agricultural support from humanitarian actors through the planting season that ends
in July 2011; thereafter, UNDAF Project XYZ will take up the support activities.” (The
following figure is a useful schematic, from Liberia’s “Critical Humanitarian Needs 2008”
document, on the inter-relation of the CAP and post-CAP humanitarian planning processes
with recovery and development plans.)
4.
PART I:
See best practices of well-defined strategic objectives:

 Central African Republic 2010
 Sri Lanka 2008
9
B. MONITORING
Monitoring generally means being aware of the state of the system and the crisis that it is trying to
solve. It serves several purposes: information for real-time operational and strategic decision-making
(such as acting to fill gaps), information for advocacy (demonstrating needs and effectiveness, for
example to donors and affected country governments), and learning lessons.
Results can be measured at each level of the planning hierarchy, i.e. at the levels of output,
cluster/sector objective, and strategic objective. Measuring the extent to which the CAP is successful
in reaching the strategic objectives is not an easy task, but it can be built on monitoring at lower
levels of the planning hierarchy.
The monitoring plan in your CAP should consist of three parts: strategic monitoring plan, a logframe
showing the continuum from strategic objectives through strategic indicators to sectoral objectives,
and sectoral monitoring plans (the latter presented in each Cluster/sector Response Plan).
USEFUL DEFINITIONS FOR PLANNING AND MONITORING

To illustrate the relationships between the different levels, the planning hierarchy may be
visualized as a results chain: the combination of inputs and activities produces outputs, which
should achieve the outcomes and impact.
Inputs  activities  outputs  outcomes  Impact
 Inputs are the financial, human, material, technological and information resources used for a
humanitarian action.
Example: trucks, wages, funds, staff, materials.
 Outputs are the products, goods or services that result from a humanitarian action.
Example: NFI kits distributed to affected households; functioning water points; latrines;
distributed food rations; therapeutic feeding treatments.
 An outcome is the short- and medium-term effects of a humanitarian action on the affected
population. Outcomes often are the results of multiple outputs; each outcome in your planning
may therefore correspond to more than one output.
Example: increase in household consumption of potable water.
 An impact is the positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by
a humanitarian action, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
Example: reduction in child mortality.
4.
An objective outlines part of your response strategy and states the expected outputs, outcomes
and impact, supported by a convincing description of how you will attain them in the face of
limited resources, imperfect access and other impediments.
PART I:
An indicator is a characteristic of a population or environment that is subject to measurement

(directly or indirectly) and can be used to describe one or more aspects of a humanitarian
emergency. Indicators can measure any point in the planning hierarchy (input, output and
outcomes). Indicators should be SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-
bound.
10
Key questions in the formulation of indicators:

How can I measure that the expected outputs are being achieved?
What type of information can demonstrate a positive change?
What can be feasibly monitored and analyzed given resources and capacity constraints?
Will timely information be available for different monitoring exercises (MYR or end-of-year
review)?
Will the information be useful for decision-making and learning?

The target should reflect the best planning estimate of the corresponding achievement level.
Example: Indicator - Number of counterpart staff trained – Target: 100
i. Strategic Indicators and data collection system

Strategic monitoring in CAPs is the use of key indicators with which you’ll monitor the evolution of

the crisis, the humanitarian needs, the appropriateness of the strategy, and the implementation and
effects of the response. (See here for on-line data sources for common indicators.) The strategic
monitoring plan specifies indicators, data collection plan, and structure to analyze the information
continuously and make strategic decisions and re-direction as needed.
INSTRUCTIONS
The HCT should select about four to six indicators that will measure achievement of the strategic
objectives stated in the CHAP and the corresponding targets that will reflect the level of progress
during the appeal year. These strategic indicators should be a mix of:
1. those that measure the process of humanitarian response (e.g. “proportion of displaced
women, girls, boys and men who receive full and regular humanitarian assistance”);
2. those that measure the impact of humanitarian response (e.g. “incidence of water-borne
disease among displaced people”), and;
3. those that measure the upstream worsening or improvement of the crisis, (e.g. “number of
newly displaced women, girls, boys and men”).
Present current or recent baseline data for each strategic indicator. Consult your cluster/sector
coordinators and, where relevant and available, cross-cutting issues’ working groups/advisors/focal
points about the cost-effectiveness, data availability and data sources before selecting an indicator.
If your 2010 indicators served well for clearly reporting progress in “year in review”, feel free to use
them again. You can also use the variables in the basic statistics box in the executive summary –
these amount to generic strategic monitoring indicators.
Key Issues to Include:

4.
 Explain what sources of information will be used to measure the strategic indicators.
(Remember that each cluster/sector response plan will also propose its own cluster/sector-
specific indicators for its objectives, so choose higher-level indicators for strategic
monitoring, or cluster/sector indicators with strategic significance.)
 How will the HCT collect the necessary information, how often, who is responsible for
PART I:
analysing the information, and what decision-making structure will act on the information?
 How will the HCT monitor needs throughout the appeal period, including those of specific
groups deemed particularly vulnerable?
 How will the HCT monitor its planning scenarios and triggers, and discuss the need for major
shifts in strategy? 3
3 The IASC Guidance note on using the cluster approach to strengthen humanitarian response elaborates much of this:
http://ocha.unog.ch/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/Introduction/IASCGUIDANCENOTECLUSTERAPPROAC
H.pdf.
11
See best practices in strategic indicators and data collection system here:
 Somalia 2010
 Central Africa Republic 2010
 Zimbabwe 2009
ii. Logical Framework for the Humanitarian Response

This summarizes and charts the relationship between the strategy, strategic objectives, strategic
indicators, and cluster/sector response plans. (Implicitly, they link further to the projects selected by
each cluster/sector, but it is awkward to enumerate projects in a logframe for reasons of space.)
The following sample table summarizes agreed strategic objectives, indicators, and response plan
objectives.
Corresponding Sector Response Plan

Strategic Objective Key indicators
Objectives
1. Ensure basic survival U5 acute malnutrition; Food Provide monthly packages equating
needs of the 300,000 key disease incidence; to 2100 Kcal/day to 300,000
most vulnerable IDPs and litres/person/day beneficiaries (disaggregated by sex
host families potable water; … and age here)
(disaggregated by sex Health Immunize 100,000 IDPs and host
and age here) in the family boys and girls against
north. measles (disaggregated by sex and
age here)
Wat/San Ensure 15 litres of water per person
living in IDP camps
etc…
2. etc…
(TECHNICAL TIP: it’s often better to make the logframe in Excel, and send it to CAP Section that
way as an accompanying file – Excel is easier to format than big Word tables.)
NOTE: Logframes can become very lengthy and time-consuming, especially if one tries to show the
full spectrum from overarching goal to detailed activities. But in this case the purpose and format are
fairly simple: to show the unity of the assessed needs and strategic objectives with cluster/sector
response plans (and, by implication, with projects and funding requests). Carefully consider how
much detail to show. Bear in mind that each cluster/sector response plan will have its own sectoral
4.
logframe, which goes into further detail like activities which are not needed in the strategic logframe.
See best practices for logframes here:

 Iraq 2009
PART I:
iii. Cluster/Sector monitoring matrix and plan
The third part is a monitoring plan and a monitoring matrix for each cluster/sector to be presented in
each cluster/sector response plan. Based on the CHAP strategic objectives and on cluster
assessments and analysis, the cluster members will agree on three to six objectives and the
corresponding targets to be achieved in 2011.
The monitoring plan should explain the monitoring methods, which will indicate when and in what
format the information on the achievements will be collected. The cluster organisations should agree
12
on the monitoring methodology at the start of the operations in order to plan accordingly, assign
responsibilities and agreeing on collection and analysis of data and costs to be budgeted. If an
indicator is considered too complicated to collect, replace it with one that is simpler.
Normally, the output tracking is more or less continuous, and is merely a compilation of project-by-
project output updates. By contrast, outcome measurement (often referred to as “impact
evaluation,” but that term has a specific professional definition that is too elaborate for most
humanitarian purposes) normally happens at longer intervals – once or twice per year – and
requires a well-developed design. You don’t need to state this well-developed design in your CAP

sector monitoring plan; for now it can be sufficient to state how and when the cluster/sector will
design the outcome measurement scheme. (It’s necessary, as part of this, to consider the
strategic monitoring plan – how the HCT will monitor the higher-level indicators of the crisis – and
also to consult the other cluster/sectors, as their outcomes may be related to yours.)
To summarise, cluster/sector coordinators should plan to gather periodic, real-time information
Criteria for selection and Prioritization of projects

from their cluster/sector member organizations about project-level outputs. The coordinators
aggregate the data and present it to the HC and HCTs, who need it for strategic and operational
decision-making, and for sharing with stakeholders like donors and the affected country
government.)
See best practice:

 Somalia 2010
OTHER BACKGROUND
CAP monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is under development. Most clusters/sectors in most CAP
countries are already tracking outputs in real time. Some HCTs have started tracking strategic-
level outcomes as well (see Somalia CAP Mid-Year Review 2010), and the IASC aims to support
HCTs in all CAP countries to do so. However outcome monitoring is more nuanced and
methodologically more complicated than compiling output information, and so will require more
support. (The more commonly-used phrase for outcome monitoring is “impact evaluation,” but this
has a specific professional definition more appropriate to development actions than humanitarian
actions. But either phrase can be understood as measuring results and learning lessons.)
The Evaluation and Effectiveness document by OECD provides definitions of numerous relevant
terms: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf.
5. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION OF

5.
PROJECTS
TIMING: Criteria for both selection and prioritization of projects flow from the needs analysis and
PART I:
strategic objectives, and so should follow those steps immediately, before project drafting in
clusters. In the CAP calendar, this usually corresponds to approximately the second half of
September.
PROCESS MANAGEMENT: Using this year’s criteria as a starting point, analyze within the HCT
(often at the CAP workshop) whether they need to be amended for the 2011 CAP. (If the HCT
cannot agree on criteria that set meaningful boundaries on project selection and prioritization, the
HC may have to designate a more focused team to draft any necessary enhancements for the
HCT’s consideration.) If there are no criteria from the 2010 CAP that are usable as a starting point,
see best practice examples below.
13
Selection is the process of choosing the projects to be included in the CAP, according to the general
selection criteria agreed by the HCT (with some additional sector-specific criteria as appropriate).
This is done in each cluster/sector through a peer review process (using the On-line Projects
System/OPS, on which all cluster/sector members can see each other’s draft projects – see Part II,
Section 5 for details). Prioritization follows the selection phase; it means identifying the projects
within each cluster/sector that most urgently require funding, so that donors fund the most urgent
projects first. This too is done by peer review and consensus in the cluster/sector, based on general
prioritization criteria agreed by the HCT (possibly with sector-specific additions if necessary). Each
project should be marked with its ranking on OPS.
Note that CAP practice does not require prioritization among clusters/sectors, in keeping with the
principle that humanitarian action has to be holistic – though the HCT is free to do this in addition if
they want.
A. SELECTION
At a minimum, the selection criteria that an HCT adopts for a CAP must conform to the IASC CAP
Guidelines:
“(1) While overall estimates of emergency requirements, by sector and sub-sectors, can be
used as background information, the emergency components selected for inclusion in
the appeal for which funding is actually requested must meet the following criteria:
1. demonstrated relationship to survival requirements of identified group/s of severely

affected people including refugees and IDPs;
2. demonstrated delivery and implementation capacity by the concerned agency to

procure and deliver inputs:
i. within the time frame of the appeal;
ii. according to specific nature of the input, e.g. seeds depending upon
agricultural cycle.
(2) Inclusion of rehabilitation activities and inputs must meet the following criteria:
1. demonstrated functional/supportive relationship to relief interventions such as:

i. e.g. repair or construction of infrastructure such as roads, bridges and ports,
demining, aircraft hire and similar;
ii. restoration of essential facilities (e.g., provision of potable water, basic health
care infrastructure, cattle vaccination, shelter);
iii. costs of administration, monitoring etc. that are directly related to (1) i. above
5.
2. demonstrated agency capacity to procure, deliver and distribute required inputs

and ensure implementation within the appeal time frame.
PART I:
3. demonstrated in-country capacity to develop for and maintain the infrastructure

required to undertake rehabilitation activities and meet delivery and distribution
targets within the appeal time frame.”
You will need an explicit statement of the selection criteria for projects included in the CAP before the
project drafting and review process. (These criteria will have been applied to all draft projects via
peer review by cluster/sector members, and submitted to the HC for final approval for inclusion in the
appeal.) State the criteria also in the CAP document, section 4.4.
14
Here is where the issue of boundaries is applied most practically. Most CAPs take place in
situations of generalized vulnerability, impairment of basic services, and developmental neglect. In
these conditions, humanitarian need can be detected almost anywhere in the country, and there is
usually not enough funding or capacity among the humanitarian organizations to address them all.
The HC and HCT therefore have to set the boundaries of needs and response at the outset of the
appeal process (after needs analysis). This boundary is applied generally through the setting of
strategic objectives, more specifically in cluster/sector response plans, and most specifically in
selection of projects. The project selection criteria therefore operationalize the boundaries. They
should also take into account donor regulations for use of humanitarian funds: if the selection

criteria allow activities that fall outside most donors’ regulations for humanitarian funding, the HCT
should make a plan for what other funding envelopes will be accessed for such projects.
Apart from the appeal-specific boundaries, as a general rule all projects in the appeal must be in
line with the strategic objectives, and cluster/sector objectives in the relevant cluster/sector. They
should moreover be feasible for the proposing organization (vis-à-vis its technical expertise,

capacity on the ground, and access), and reasonably budgeted.
Most importantly, the cluster/sector should orchestrate its members’ activities and projects so as to
cover the key needs in that sector; and no projects should be selected that do not address proven
or reasonably inferred needs.
Sample criteria for project selection:

 The needs that the project plans to address must be confirmed by evidence that is solid by
reason of first-hand assessment on the ground, or triangulation (multiple independent
sources);
 The project must be consistent with the cluster/sector strategy, and must contribute towards
the achievement of one or several of the strategic objectives agreed upon by the HCT for the
humanitarian operation in 2011;
 The project must present a clear target in specified operational areas and should not
duplicate activities implemented by other organizations;
 The implementing agency must have a recognized capacity to implement the project;
 The appealing organization must be part of existing coordination structures (cluster/sector
working group member);
 The implementation of the project or part thereof must be feasible within the 12-month
timeframe (considering access as well as organizational capacity);
 The project must be cost-effective in terms of the number of beneficiaries and the needs to
which the project intends to respond.
 Wherever possible, the project shall include national NGOs and other national partners.
 Projects should avoid repetition with last year’s projects; where such repetition is
unavoidable, the proposing organization should justify why the particular project is needed
for another year.
5.
B. PRIORITIZATION
Donors expect projects listed in a CAP to be prioritized, because this enables them to ensure that
PART I:
the most important needs and projects are covered (considering limited funds), or covered first
(considering time-sensitive factors). Prioritization is an essential element of the CAP and is not
optional. If one were to use a medical analogy, any emergency room doctor immediately triages a
new patient’s conditions and prioritizes the treatment orders – cardiac symptoms before bruises,
for example. Humanitarians have the same obligation: all humanitarian needs should be treated,
but some are more urgent than others. Also – if HCTs do not prioritize, donors will de facto do it for
them in their funding decisions.
CAPs should be prioritized with at a minimum two tiers of priority among the projects. The
cluster/sector coordinator is responsible for ensuring completion of this piece of the CAP, working
15
with the entire cluster/sector in a peer review process. The HC is responsible for ensuring that the
HCT and the clusters/sectors agree upon a clear prioritization scheme and a meaningful outcome of
the prioritization exercise, both at the cluster and overall CAP levels. (A prioritization scheme is not
useful if most of the appeal requirements are classified as high-priority.) The HC and the
cluster/sector leads are also responsible for reviewing the prioritization results after the cluster review
and for taking action if the prioritization scheme does not yield satisfactory results.
Projects can be prioritized according to various criteria including, for example, the following:
 early recovery (life-/livelihoods-sustaining) or direct relief;

 geographical group priorities;
 target group priorities;
 time sensitivity;
 conformance with the CERF life-saving criterion.
Gender and other relevant cross-cutting issues could as well be used in some cases as a
prioritization criteria.
Note that CAP practice does not require prioritization among clusters/sectors, in keeping with the
principle that humanitarian action has to be holistic – though the HCT is free to do this in addition if
they want.
Though most life-saving projects will be top-priority, not all top-priority projects have to be directly life-
saving. They can instead enable other top-priority projects, or they can reduce aid dependence
(early recovery) or avert irrecoverable harm in a time-critical way (e.g. pest prevention).
HCTs are free to choose the labels of their two (or sometimes three) levels of priority. If a country
team is inexperienced at humanitarian response and finds it difficult to make decisions about
humanitarian priorities, thinking of it as “categorization” may be a helpful starting point.
Most CAPs use a method of assigning a score to each project based on test questions. Here is a
typical set of test questions:
1. Does the project remedy, mitigate or avert direct, imminent and serious physical harm or
threats (whether violence, disease, or deprivation) to affected people within a short time span?
(If yes, 2 points)
2. Is the project essential to enabling other projects to remedy, mitigate or avert direct,
imminent and serious physical harm or threats to affected people within a short time span? (If
yes, 2 points)
3. Does the project build vulnerable people’s resilience to harm or threats, or reduce aid
5.
dependence quickly? (If yes, 1 point)
4. Does the project build institutional and/or community capacity to remedy, mitigate, or avert
PART I:
direct and imminent physical harm or threats to affected people within a short time span? (If
yes, 1 point)
*** ≥ 2 points: top priority; < 2 points: medium priority ***
Your scheme should consider whatever the most important factors are in a specific crisis.
Those could, for example, include:
 Relief vs. recovery/transition;

 Geographical or target group priorities (including a particular sex/age group, e.g. young
pastoralists, out-of-school boys);
16
 Pre-selecting projects that meet the CERF life-saving criterion (see here: CERF Guidance)
(which would save time if your country receives a CERF under-funded allocation);
 Time-bound projects (because of agricultural season for example).
Each project’s priority designation (marked in OPS) will appear in the document’s List of Projects
(Annex I) and on FTS. FTS has an automatic table to track funding according to priority group,
which is a useful tool for advocacy. Priority ratings can and should be updated at any time
throughout the year; updates can be uploaded onto OPS, and (once approved) published
electronically via FTS.

(Further guidance on prioritization may come during the 2011 CAP development season.)
See best practices here:

 Iraq and the region 2009

C. GENDER MARKER
In the 2011 CAP season, the Gender Marker Initiative will be mandatory in Chad, Haiti, Kenya, oPt,
Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Other CAP countries are also welcomed to use the
gender marker. GenCap Advisors will work with these eight HCTs to support the effective
application of the Marker. For these countries, the following will apply:
Describe in one paragraph how the gender marker process took place in your country and indicate
the number of projects by code.
Gender Code Number of projects

0
1
2A
2B
Total
5.
PART I:
17
PART II: BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND POLICY ON

SUBSTANTIVE & TECHNICAL ISSUES
Developing a CAP in the short time between the end of August holidays and the final field draft due
date in the second half of October is a matter of (among other things) process management and
information management. The sections below will clarify how the HC, cluster/sector coordinators,
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND POLICY ON SUBSTANTIVE & TECHNICAL ISSUES
and cluster members can manage the process and information. It sets out some rules of the game
agreed in the IASC in order to save debate at field level. It also describes some background to the
key policies and practices that make a good CAP.
1. ROLE OF THE HC IN THE CAP

The HC is responsible for ensuring the execution of all in-country aspects of the consolidated appeal
process, including, inter alia, the following:
 triggering an appeal if necessary;

 determining strategic priorities for the CAP planning year, linked to long-term strategy to
resolve the humanitarian crisis;
ROLE OF THE HC IN THE CAP
 setting the boundaries of humanitarian action;

 analysing and mapping needs;
 ensuring that early recovery is effectively mainstreamed across all clusters/sectors;
 ensuring that each part of the HCT delivers their parts of the CAP on time;
 promoting inclusiveness, particularly with regard to NGOs;
 mitigating competition among agencies;
 confirming the clusters/sectors’ selection and prioritization of projects;
 monitoring and reporting on the collective humanitarian action;
 mobilizing resources and stimulating coordination among donors; and
 overseeing the management of pooled funds where they exist.
Detailed guidance on the role of the HC in the CAP, with measurements of success, is under
development by the IASC.
1.
2. THE CLUSTER SYSTEM AND CAPS

A. Frequently asked questions
Should we say clusters or sectors?
Some HCTs prefer to speak of “Clusters/Sectors” and “cluster leads,” while others prefer to stick to
the more traditional terminology of “sectors”, “sectoral groups” and “sector leads” (or in some cases,
“working groups”, “thematic groups” or “task forces”). It should be left to HCTs to decide on
appropriate terminology for their country, depending on the working language and agency
preferences.
PART II:
“Cluster lead” or “cluster coordinator”?

 “Cluster lead” or “cluster lead agency”: refers to the agency or organization that has been
designated by the HC as cluster lead agency for a particular sector at the country level,
following consultations with the Humanitarian Country Team. (IFRC is called ““cluster
convenor” rather than cluster lead, for legal reasons.)
 “Cluster coordinator”: refers to the person who has been designated as cluster coordinator by
the cluster lead agency at the country level. This person is responsible for the day-to-day
coordination and facilitation of the work of the cluster.
18
Is funding supposed to go “through clusters”?

Clusters and cluster lead agencies are NOT meant to be funding channels: cluster/sector lead
agencies generally don’t have the mechanisms to channel funds to other organizations (aside from
their existing implementing partners). However cluster leads and members should influence
donors about which projects to fund, according to the cluster’s consensual prioritization. Similarly,
they should contribute to HCT decisions on pooled fund allocations.

B. Role of cluster/sector coordinators (CSCs) in the CAP: How can CSCs
ensure an optimal cluster/sector response plan and well-allocated
funding?
Note: this section is consistent with the IASC “Generic Terms of Reference for CSCs at the Country Level,” 4
and operationalizes them for the CAP.
Generally, cluster/sector lead agencies have a dual responsibility to represent both their own
agencies and the clusters they lead in the HCT (or equivalent), as well as in other relevant fora.
THE CLUSTER SYSTEM AND CAPS

Cluster/sector coordinators (CSCs) are responsible for the day-to-day running of clusters/sectors in
the field. CSCs should act as neutral representatives of the cluster as a whole rather than as a
representative of their particular agency. One way to ensure this separation of roles is to appoint a
dedicated CSC with no agency responsibilities, though this is a matter for agencies to decide on a
case-by-case basis.
While “cluster/sector coordinators” are defined as individuals not agencies, some of the following
roles are best understood as fulfilled by an organization or at least a team, rather than just one
individual. (“Cluster lead” refers to an organization; “cluster coordinator” refers to an individual.)
Inclusiveness: CSCs should ensure that all humanitarian actors have the opportunity to
participate in CAP development, by jointly setting the direction, strategies and activities of the
sector group, the operational consensus being set by the CSCs. Moreover, the CAP should
consider and include suitable projects from all humanitarian organizations 5 to the greatest extent
possible; CSCs are particularly encouraged to bring NGOs into the process and NGOs are
encouraged to work with clusters to get their projects counted in the CAP. The reasons are that
CAPs can reflect a strategic consensus on humanitarian priorities and division of labour only if they
have inputs from non-UN actors; and they can serve the purpose of advocating adequate funding
only if they count the funding needs of all key implementers. 6 (At the same time, CSCs must lead
a peer-review process that selects projects for the CAP according to various suitability criteria and 2.
the boundaries of the cluster/sector plan, which implies a degree of exclusivity. See below,
“Project selection.”)
4 http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/Generic%20Terms%20of%20Referenc
e%20for%20Sector.doc
PART II:
5 The exception to this is direct funding requests by the affected country government or parts thereof; these are excluded by IASC
policy, mainly for reasons of neutrality. However government entities can act as implementing partners or sub-contractors of
humanitarian organizations in the CAP.
6 In accordance with the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in particular
independence, the International Federation of the Red Cross/ Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) manage their own, separate appeal funding mechanisms published on the respective organisation's websites. In
accordance with these principles, the IFRC may however annex its own appeal to the Flash Appeals and CAPs. The only Red
Cross/Crescent National Society that can appeal for funding as a project partner of a UN Agency is the National Society of the country
of operation. The Red Cross or Red Crescent National Society of the country of operation may become a project partner of the UN,
provided that it can adhere to the Fundamental Principles and policies of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
Participating National Societies from outside the country of operation must work through the IFRC Appeal, or the ICRC, depending on
who is in the lead of the Red Cross/ Red Crescent Movement's response.
19
How to measure success: number of humanitarian aid organizations (national and

international) that participate in cluster and/or CAP, as a proportion of all such
organizations in country (the higher the better). Amount and proportion of humanitarian
funds going to organizations or activities inside the CAP (the more the better, with due
regard to local funding and organizational realities).
Government consultation: Relevant government bodies often participate in clusters. If not,

CSCs should establish systematic contact for operational, working-level communication. (Contact
on the level of strategy or humanitarian diplomacy is usually left to the HC or designate, and the
sector policy and strategy left to the cluster/sector lead agency.) There are two main objectives of
these contacts for CAP purposes. First, for planning purposes the cluster/sector should have the
fullest information possible on the areas of need that the government will cover, and therefore the
remaining areas or gaps that the international organizations would look to cover. In other
words,CSCs should ensure that their parts of the CAP complement government plans. Second,
CSCs should also promote government buy-in for the appeal and a sense of consultation, which is
usually helpful even though an appeal does not have to be approved by the affected country
government. The two objectives are linked: governments sometimes feel that their humanitarian
actions are overlooked in appeals by international humanitarian organizations, so it may promote
government buy-in and cooperation to describe their efforts fully and tailor the CAP’s plans
accordingly. In situations with little or no government capacity, or conflict situations which might
not be conducive to joint efforts with government, the CSCs’ main objective is to keep government
counterparts informed about plans and accomplishments, to avoid possible rifts.
How to measure success: In situations where the government is covering some of the
needs, the cluster/sector response plan should map the government’s coverage and show
its inter-relation with the cluster/sector’s plans.
Needs assessment and analysis: CSCs compile existing needs assessment information from
cluster/sector members, map out key information gaps, and guide the cluster/sector to fill those gaps
in time for CAP planning. (This needs to be done well before CAP season. In recent years the ERC
has instructed HCs to lead the HCT and donors to agreement by mid-year on a general plan for
needs assessment leading up to the next CAP. In this case each CSC would present existing
2.
information and represent their cluster/sector in the HCT in developing this plan, then guide the
implementation of their cluster/sector’s part in it.) The cluster/sector coordinator plays a crucial role
in leading the cluster in the analysis of priority needs to be addressed in the CAP. The goal is a full
base of evidence and analysis on which to develop the cluster/sector response plan. The quality of
this process is fundamental to the quality of the CAP.
How to measure success: Availability of baseline data and implementation of agreed

PART II:
needs assessment plan and use of resulting analysis in the CAP; sector response plans
and prioritization of projects reflecting the results of the needs analysis.
Information management: CSCs optimize both the substance and technology of cluster/sector
information management, calling on technical support (from OCHA, the Global Cluster Lead or
other source) when needed, dividing the labour of data collection, and ensuring meaningful
analysis. Information management tools are used in a way to identify and analyse gaps in needs in
light of the assistance provided, and this before and during the CAP process.
20
Cluster/sector response plan: CSCs, in consultation with the plenary cluster/sector, draft an
inclusive cluster/sector response plan to form part of the CAP. This plan should include needs
analysis, objectives, indicators, monitoring plan, and a mapping of needs, targeted beneficiaries
and which organization will cover which needs. Any response plan must also reflect and
subsequently integrate any cross-cutting issues identified as relevant for the specific context (such
as gender, age, HIV/AIDS, protection, environment, etc.). Inclusion of cross-cutting issues from

CAP planning inception ensures their inclusion and reflection in subsequent programme planning
steps.
If there are key gaps that no organization can fill, CSCs should consult their agency regarding
provision of last resort. The plan should be based on needs, rather than existing or expected funds
(though with clear boundaries as to what constitutes a humanitarian need). The draft plan is to be
reviewed and ratified by the full cluster/sector, then passed to OCHA to form part of the CAP. Its
planned outputs and indicators will be the basis for measuring collective achievements and impact.
The response plan is continuously monitored and revised as needed.

How to measure success: Cluster/sector response plan provides strategic direction and
overall objectives for the cluster/sector, maps all the sector needs and planned coverage of
those needs (including coverage by those not participating in the cluster/sector or in the
CAP—see below), integrates meaningfully all relevant cross-cutting issues and fills
identified gaps. The cluster/sector response plan is expressed in terms of SMART
objectives and sector-relevant indicators.
Early Recovery: Early recovery objectives and related projects or programmatic methods are a
key part of CAPs and may be equally life-saving in the longer term. Prioritized early recovery
interventions build foundations for longer-term recovery and may hasten the end of aid
dependence. CSCs are responsible for guiding the cluster/sector to integrate early recovery into
their programming and the cluster/sector response plan and for ensuring linkages with other
clusters with the early recovery network. 7
How to measure success: cluster/sector response plans include early recovery-related
2.
objectives and activities that aim to strengthen national and local capacities and begin
working towards longer-term recovery.
Complementarity: As an essential part of the cluster/sector response plan, CSCs ensure that
interventions of the humanitarian actors, including government actions and others not included in
the CAP’s funding request, complement each other. In practice, this means identifying or mapping
priority needs of the affected population and then matching the capacities of the humanitarian
PART II:
actors to those needs so as to avoid overlap and duplication of activities. The comparative
strengths of the humanitarian actors and their technical and operational capacity to deliver the
necessary assistance should be considered.
7 Note: because early recovery is a cross-cutting issue, and also a set of programmatic approaches and goals that can be used in any
technical sector, some HCTs do not create an early recovery cluster/sector and separate response plan. Of those that do, some create
it to form a coordination structure and response plan not for early recovery across all sectors, but rather for certain areas of activity that
fall outside the main clusters/sectors (such as governance, rule of law, non-agricultural livelihoods, or land and property).
21
To ensure complementarity among the various humanitarian actors, the CSCs should look for
synergies and links with other sectors. (The Inter-cluster Coordination Group is the natural forum
for cross-sectoral complementarity. and serves as a good forum for reminding clusters of the need
to integrate relevant cross-cutting issues. The CSCs represent their cluster/sector in inter-cluster
forums. The cluster/sector’s activities and decisions should be aligned with the overall
humanitarian plan for the crisis.
How to measure success: The sector response plan presents a comprehensive mapping
of needs and activities as well as clearly mentioning who does what and where for all
actors on the ground and eliminating gaps and overlaps.
Inclusion of cross-cutting issues: each HCT, with advice from relevant theme groups, experts,
local NGO or academic groups, experts at HQ-level where no local expertise is available, should
identify the key cross-cutting issues in its setting, and agree how all clusters/sectors should act to
address them. The CSC represents the cluster/sector in such HCT discussions, and then guides
the cluster’s development and implementation of its part of the agreed plan. Performance on the
integration of cross-cutting issues must be a regular feature of the CSCs’ monitoring and reporting.
Project selection: A regular criticism of CAPs, especially by donors, is that they contain too many
projects only tangentially related to humanitarian priorities, or that the proposed actions are not
substantiated by the needs assessments. Each CAP, and therefore each project selected for the
CAP, should truly warrant full funding. CSCs are responsible to the HC for ensuring that each
proposed CAP project selected by the cluster/sector is based on assessed/identified needs,
addresses a CAP strategic objective, is feasible for the proposing organization to implement, and is
reasonably budgeted.
(This selection responsibility has to be understood in combination with the previous paragraph on
inclusiveness. CSCs have to do a sort of balancing act: include all key humanitarian organizations
in the cluster/sector and in the CAP, but also enforce a suitable degree of exclusiveness in project
selection. Inclusiveness should not be understood as counting all proposals in the CAP without
vetting.)
CSCs guide the cluster/sector in the selection process as follows: (i) after mapping needs,
2.
articulating general objectives in the cluster/sector response plan and identifying partners and their
roles and responsibilities in addressing these needs, the CSC supports cluster/sector members in
uploading their draft projects onto OPS; (ii) the CSC convenes a peer-review process of all the
draft projects submitted, open to all cluster/sector members, and puts in place a project selection
committee if deemed necessary An effective ‘selection committee’ should also include actors
representing specific cross-cutting issues relevant for the sector (iii) the cluster/sector members
select the projects necessary to cover all of the needs identified in the cluster/sector response plan,
taking advantage of comparative strengths. The CSC then presents the selected projects (via
OPS) to the HC and HCT for final approval; the HC should communicate desired changes to the
PART II:
CSC, rather than amending projects without notification. (See Part I, Section 5 of these guidelines
for detailed guidance on project selection.)
(CAP policy is neutral as to whether NGOs should list their own proposals directly in CAPs, or
instead be represented as implementing partners in “umbrella” projects proposed by UN agencies.
This is to be agreed between each NGO and relevant UN agency, and reviewed by the
cluster/sector as part of overall peer review of draft projects for the CAP. Funding through
“umbrella” projects can have inefficiencies in the form of delays and pass-through costs. On the
other hand, in some situations the stakeholders agree that this is the best arrangement. But the
22
UN agency or CSC does not decide alone: NGOs should feel entitled to propose their projects
directly. It is to be noted that this is one of the more perilous areas of potential conflict of interest
for a cluster lead agency.)
How to measure success: Each project selected for the CAP is demonstrably within the

boundaries and strategic objectives agreed for the CAP, and justified by needs
assessment and capacity to implement the project by the concerned agency, within a
defined timeframe. The selection process is inclusive of all cluster/sector members, or an
agreed representation, as well as representatives from relevant cross-cutting theme
groups.
Prioritization among selected projects: prioritization follows project selection as a necessary

second step. It is generally agreed that humanitarian action has to be holistic and not limited to
raw life-saving actions. However, it is also part of the humanitarian imperative to triage the needs
and accomplish the most urgent actions first. Prioritization is how the cluster/sector signals to
donors and stakeholders what needs to be done first. Current CAP practice is to prioritize projects

within each cluster/sector with due consideration of cross-cutting issues as well as in cooperation
with the cross-cutting clusters, rather than giving whole cluster/sectors priority over others (though
an HCT is free to do so if they choose). The HCT discusses and agrees general project
prioritization criteria as part of CAP development, usually at the CAP workshop; CSCs convey their
cluster/sector’s views on criteria in this forum. (See 2011 CAP Guidelines for further detail on
prioritization.) Relevant cross-cutting issues can be included in the prioritization criteria.
The process at cluster/sector level starts with the CSC leading the cluster/sector (usually as part of
the process of developing the cluster/sector response plan) to agree on how to apply or
operationalise the prioritization criteria for that cluster/sector; for example they might agree to add
some sector-specific criteria. A discussion at inter-cluster level needs also to take place in parallel
to coordinate the selection of cluster-specific criteria and their application with other clusters. The
CSC then leads the plenary cluster/sector or agreed representatives to review each of the selected
projects and give a priority score to each. (This level is shown on the on-line project summary
sheet.)
How to measure success: Each project selected by the cluster/sector bears a priority
designation, consistent with the CAP’s general prioritization criteria (which in turn grow out
2.
of the strategic objectives and the most urgent identified needs). The proportion of
projects awarded top priority is restrictive enough to give donors a clear guide on what to
fund first and to make it likely that the top-priority set of projects will be 100% funded.1
Funding: CSCs in unison with the cluster/sector overall should advocate funding for their sector,
and give interested donors transparent and objective advice on which projects in the sector most
urgently need funding, according to the priority ranking given to each project by cluster/sector
members. If funding is available from a pooled fund (CERF or country-specific CHF), the CSC
PART II:
represents the cluster/sector’s view on how such flexible funds should be allocated, usually by
nominating the highest-priority unfunded projects which the cluster/sector has already identified in
the prioritization process.
CSCs should master the information in the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) tables for their appeal
(http://fts.unocha.org), use it often, and encourage sector members to feed updated information to
FTS (fts@reliefweb.int). CSCs should monitor funding in their sector outside the CAP (FTS table
H), and try to get those organizations and projects into the CAP.
23
A particular sub-set of funding responsibilities for the CSC is to obtain funding for the cluster lead
agency’s role. It is now widely accepted that the cluster coordination role requires dedicated staff,
and that these often have to be supported with voluntary funds. The IASC Working Group decided in
July 2009 that fundraising for cluster coordination costs (CCC) should be done in the CAP, where
CAPs exist, either as freestanding project proposals or as costs rolled into larger implementation
projects (CCC projects should normally be listed in their own cluster and in case of multiple-cluster
CCC projects ad hoc solutions can be found as to which cluster to put them in for appeal purposes).
How to measure success: Cluster’s/sector’s funding as percentage of requirements, in

comparison with other sectors in the appeal; funding first to the highest-priority projects in
the sector.
Update and revision of cluster/sector response plan and projects: CSCs draw lessons from past
activities and current monitoring, and guide cluster/sector discussions to revise the response plan
and projects accordingly. Cluster/sector members should continually update their proposed CAP
projects (as needed) and funding information on OPS/FTS, to keep them up-to-date with reality. In
addition to continual situation monitoring, monitoring of indicators agreed at cluster/sector level and
ad hoc revision of response plan and projects as needed, CSCs lead their cluster/sector in the
scheduled Mid-Year Review of the CAP.
How to measure success: Projects displayed on public platform (OPS/FTS) are

continually updated to reflect reality on the ground. Cluster/sector response plan is revised
at appropriate times (CAP Mid-Year Review, plus ad hoc as needed), taking new
information and analysis into account.
Monitoring and evaluation: CSCs articulate a cluster/sector monitoring plan as part of the
response plan to be embedded in the CAP; this will also contribute to the CAP’s overall strategic-
level monitoring. The cluster/sector monitoring plan should specify indicators (output and outcome
indicators) that measure progress towards the cluster/sector’s objectives and the evolution of
humanitarian needs in the sector. CSCs then orchestrate the collection of necessary data by
cluster/sector members, its compilation and analysis, and transmission to the HCT.
2.
As a general approach, it is essential for cluster/sector member organizations to share information

with the cluster/sector and CSC in real time at the output level of analysis (for example, number of
boreholes drilled vs. planned number). This real-time information is needed for operational decision-
making by humanitarian actors and managers. To evaluate the more nuanced outcome (the short-
and medium-term effects of a humanitarian action on the affected population (increase in litres per
person per day of household consumption of potable water) and impact level of analysis (for
example, reduction of child mortality for instance), CSCs should guide their cluster/sector to develop
a plan to measure humanitarian outcomes related to the cluster/sector’s actions and outputs. Note
that it is usually impractical for methodological reasons to measure outcomes and impact at the
PART II:
project level; such evaluation is better made at a more aggregated or collective level (cluster/sector,
or perhaps inter-cluster). CSCs should consult the wider HCT including cross-cutting theme groups
or experts in developing their monitoring and evaluation plans, in case an inter-sectoral evaluation
plan suggests itself.
How to measure success: Information on outputs and outcomes to date across clusters
is available in real time; each CAP summarizes the past year’s outputs versus targets, plus
impact if possible.
24
C. Sample process and consultation for developing cluster/sector

response plan for CAP
 Commission needs assessments in time to fill key information gaps before needs analysis for
CAP (which is usually in September)
 Update the contact / membership list; ensure all appropriate UN and non-UN partners, the

Gender Marker Focal Point, and cross cutting issues’ working groups/advisors/focal points are
included.
 Meeting (with telecon for those who can’t join) to agree on cluster needs analysis and resulting
cluster/sector objectives; draft SMART objectives & indicators. (Get small task team of 2-3 to
draft in advance to present to cluster/sector group.) Map needs & who is covering what where.
If there are evident gaps that could feasibly be filled, encourage members to prepare project
proposals to cover them. (Make it clear that putting these projects in the CAP does NOT mean
that they cannot also send the proposals to their favourite donors – ECHO or whatever. In fact
they should, even if they think the project is already likely to be funded. The CAP is an
inventory of everyone’s priority actions.) Present criteria for selection & prioritization. Present
OPS project format and user guide. Set process to review projects. (They can be reviewed on
line, or printed from OPS for review on paper.)

 CSC starts writing the response plan chapter.
 Organizations upload draft projects to OPS, where all peers can see them. The CSC should
also update the ‘map’ (or table) that matches needs with draft projects, to show what gaps are
not yet covered by proposals.
 The CSC e-mails the draft cluster/sector response plan to full cluster/sector team for comment;
incorporates comments, noting controversial or contradictory comments for discussion in
meeting.
 Second meeting of full team, to peer-review all proposals, select those meeting the criteria for
selection in the CAP, and rating the priority among the selected projects, per the general CAP
prioritization criteria, plus any additional cluster/sector-specific filtering on which the group
agrees. Discuss and agree any outstanding issues in response plan chapter.
 The CSC clicks “approve” on OPS for the selected projects, and checks that each has the
agreed priority rating and ensures that each project has a gender marker code for those CAP
countries piloting the gender marker.
 The CSC e-mails sector response plan to OCHA field office, by deadline.
Note: If the cluster/sector group doesn’t accept your project for the CAP, of course you can still
seek funds for it and implement it; no one will try to stop you. The CAP represents the group
2.
consensus on what’s important and what projects are needed to achieve it. And if you can’t
convince humanitarian professional peers that what you propose is important, maybe you should
rethink whether you really want to direct your efforts there.
D. Field cluster coordination costs should go in the CAP

It’s now recognized that the field cluster lead role requires dedicated staff, and that in turn requires
resources. Some cluster lead agencies manage to fund this from flexible resources. But the
essence of the cluster lead role is predictability, and this mode of resourcing is not predictable
PART II:
enough for that. Over the years, quite a few projects have appeared in CAPs seeking funds
(usually relatively small amounts) for the cluster lead role, and these have generated a certain
amount of support. (There are probably many more cases where cluster lead costs have been
rolled more or less invisibly into a lead agency’s larger direct-implementation projects in the same
cluster.) The IASC has now decided to systematize this, and to put costs of field cluster
coordination into the CAP wherever the lead agency needs to raise funds for it.
Field cluster leads should prepare by calculating the resources needed, touching base with each
other and with their headquarters to learn success stories, and considering what measurable
25
outputs they could promise in a CAP project proposal for cluster leadership. The IASC’s guidance
is:
► Use standard TOR (in the form of the “Role of” section above) to form the project text.
► You can either present freestanding cluster lead projects, or roll them in larger direct-
implementation projects. If either works equally well for your organization and donors, then
present freestanding projects, so that the IASC can measure donor response to cluster
coordination resource needs.
Best practice:
 Click here for a list of cluster lead project proposals in CAPs in 2010, with funding results.
3. The Role of OCHA in the CAP Process

OCHA Country Offices’ main role is to provide support to the duties and responsibilities
executed by the Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs) in formulating a coordinated response to a
The Role of OCHA in the CAP Process
humanitarian crisis to reduce vulnerability. They advise the RC/HC on humanitarian issues by
maintaining an up-to-date, comprehensive picture of the humanitarian environment and develop
programme coordination with all concerned authorities, donors, peace support operations, the media
and the broader humanitarian community, including NGOs 8.
The role of OCHA Country Offices throughout the CAP cycle:

 Support the process of establishing a plan and calendar for needs assessment and
analysis (at the previous Mid-Year Review or sooner): OCHA Country Offices support the
process of defining a specific calendar for needs assessment, indicating what still needs to be
assessed, by whom and who will fund it, as specified in the Mid-Year Review guidelines.
 Support the inter-sector needs analysis to identify priority needs (ideally before or in
parallel to the CAP Workshop): The OCHA Country Office receives the sectoral inputs for
the needs analysis from the clusters/sectors. The OCHA Country Office, on behalf of the HC,
consolidates the cluster/sector inputs in a summary report which will help the HCT to identify
priority needs across clusters/sectors.
 Organize, coordinate and facilitate CAP Workshops where CAP objectives are agreed
upon in collaboration with UN agencies, NGOs and representatives of the host country
government. For detailed instructions please refer to:
How to organize a CAP Workshop: A guide for OCHA field offices and CAP facilitators:
 Facilitate the development and prepare the final field draft of the CAP document (until
3.
beginning of November): OCHA Country Offices collect information for writing the general
parts of the CHAP document and facilitate the process with the clusters to obtain their inputs
for the cluster response plans and monitoring plans. OCHA Country Offices circulate the field
draft to the Country Team for its review and to the HC for its approval.
 Mapping of needs: OCHA Country Offices provide a map of needs to the HC/RC
documenting which CAP project covers which need in which locality, and proves that the most
certain capacity is assigned to the most urgent needs.
 Facilitate the uploading/revision of projects on the Online Project System (OPS): OCHA
Country Office should appoint an OPS focal point that provides guidance to organizations in
PART II:
the OPS registration process, in the uploading/revision of projects in the system, and during
the cluster leads approval process and the RC/HC review phase. In case of poor connectivity,
the OCHA OPS focal point could upload/revise projects for other organizations or replace the
cluster leads in the approval process. For those countries piloting the Gender Marker, the
OCHA OPS focal point verifies also that uploaded project have included a Gender Marker in
the project sheet from 0 to 2a.
8 For further guidance on OCHA’s role in supporting the HC, please consult the policy instruction “The Relationship between
Humanitarian Coordinators and Heads of OCHA Field offices”, February 2009,

http://ochanet.unocha.org/PG/Policy%20Guidance/pi%20on%20HC-%20HoO%20Relations,%20final.pdf.
26
 Facilitate the vetting process of projects and ensure proper selection and
prioritization of projects: In this process, OCHA field reviews selected projects to ensure
that agreed criteria for selection and prioritization have been applied to all projects put
forward by clusters.
 Ensure the overall consolidated monitoring of the humanitarian response in the CAP
with the support of the Information Management Unit and based on clusters/sectors reports.
 Support the HC in engaging in consultations with the Government.

OVERVIEW OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE CAP PROCESS
4. OVERVIEW OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE CAP
PROCESS
CLUSTER
NEED CAP CAP
CHAP RESPONSE
ANALYSIS WORKSHOPS FINALISATION
PLANS
Agree on CAP Final Draft

WHAT Cluster response
scenarios, on Context, sent to OCHA
Elaborate needs plans detailing
strategy, on scenario, CAP section.
analysis before objectives,
prioritisation strategy, year in Projects cannot
the workshop targets and
scheme, on review longer be edited
monitoring plan
gender marker in the field.
WHEN July/August 2011 September 2011
Cluster
Adjust projects
members:
on OPS if
assess needs Participate in Upload projects
Input on CHAP requested by
and share workshop on OPS
cluster
information with
coordinators
cluster coords.
Cluster
Coordinators: Participate in Prepare cluster
compiles needs workshop; response plans Approve projects
Input on CHAP
assessments info organise cluster and review in OPS
from cluster sub-meetings projects on OPS
members
OCHA field:
WHO support the
common cross-
Compiles CHAP Compiles the
sector needs Compiles CAP
Facilitate with info cluster response
analysis, final field draft
workshop and provided by plans into cap
facilitate a and support
compiles partners and narrative and
meeting to clusters with
information distributes for circulates for
4.
discuss and OPS

PART II:
comments comments
agree on priority
needs among
sectors
HC: convene Approves CAP

meetings with final field draft
partners to Convenes Reviews and Reviews Cluster and reviews
analyse results workshop approves CHAP response plans projects
and agree on approved by
priorities clusters on OPS
27
5. NGOs AND CAPs

Although the CAP has been seen in many quarters as a UN fundraising tool, it belongs equally to
NGOs. CAPs that under-represent NGO funding needs cause a major problem: they distort the
analysis of funding for that crisis (because if projects are not listed in the CAP, we do not know what
their unfunded requirements are), and so annul a key advocacy point. Consequently there has been
an intensified focus on counting NGO projects in CAPs (aided by the inclusive cluster/sector
approach), and the progress is measurable: the number of NGOs and NGO projects in CAPs has
increased steeply over the past few years. This trend should continue.
Statistics show that inclusion of projects in CAPs is good for NGO funding. In 2009 and 2010
combined, NGO projects in consolidated and flash appeals were funded to the tune of $1.2 billion –
45% of the funds requested for those projects, not far off the average of UN agencies. Where CAPs
exist, an average of 87% of the international humanitarian funding for that crisis goes to projects
listed in the CAP.
All major humanitarian projects of all major NGOs in a crisis should be listed in the CAP. A
good way to find which NGOs are significant and not yet included in the CAP is checking at FTS
table H for your country – this list gives all reported funding outside of the appeal.
Listing projects in the CAP does not guarantee funding for them, but it is painless, easy, and has no
downside: it offers lots of free publicity and visibility (CAP documents are sent to every donor capital).
NGOs AND CAPs
Some facts:
 An NGO can put a project in the appeal, and still send the proposal directly to its usual donors;
in fact they should—that’s what UN agencies do. The CAP is not a funding pool or channel;
it’s a strategy plus an inventory or catalogue of projects necessary to achieve the strategy. All
appealing agencies, UN and NGO, should follow up directly with their donors.
 An NGO should get its project counted in the CAP even if it is already likely to be funded,
because it helps the humanitarian system and therefore the affected people, by making it more
likely that donors can be held accountable for supporting all priority humanitarian actions
5.
according to need. If half of humanitarian actions are not counted in the joint appeal, then it is
impossible to judge whether needs are covered, and whether donors are doing their job.
 An NGO may say that it has put project proposals in past CAPs, but they were never funded,
and so why should it bother? It may have failed to get funding because it was not among the
NGO’s main, core humanitarian projects—the ones most likely to be funded. NGOs have
sometimes put less attractive projects into the CAP, under the misapprehension that putting its
more core projects in would preclude them from submitting those projects to its usual donors,
or on the grounds that there is no need to use the CAP to publicize projects that donors are
likely to find attractive anyway. In this way, NGO pessimism about fundraising via CAPs
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We hope NGOs will list their main projects, so that their
major funding needs (and donors’ response thereto) are counted in the overall funding picture
for this crisis.
PART II:
 Should NGOs list their own proposals directly in CAPs, or should they be represented in the
CAP in “umbrella” proposals by UN agencies with NGOs as implementing partners? That’s
entirely up to the NGOs and relevant UN agency. NGOs often point out that is that funding
through “umbrella” projects can be usually delayed before it reaches the NGO, and there are
losses from pass-through costs. On the other hand, in some situations the stakeholders agree
that this is the best arrangement. But it’s not up to the UN agency or cluster/sector lead to
decide alone: NGOs should feel entitled to list their projects directly.
28
 A CAP has a common time frame in order to unify the efforts of many organizations into one
accountable humanitarian plan and price tag. If an NGO’s project time frame varies slightly
from that of the CAP by a couple of months, that shouldn’t be a reason to keep it out of the
CAP.
 NGOs can review the CAP draft substantively. NGOs in the field should, just like UN
agencies, receive the first and second field drafts of the CAP and comment on it. When the

final field draft is sent to HQ level, e-mail contact details for these NGOs should also be
provided, so that the NGOs’ HQs can review the document when it is circulated to the IASC
CAP Sub-Working Group.
 Project selection is now more transparent with OPS. Any registered user can view
everyone else’s projects in the draft stage, as soon as they are uploaded onto OPS, and can
see the selected and rejected ones throughout CAP development.
It is worth noting that NGOs – international and national - will also benefit from the cluster
COHERENCE OF THE CHAP AND PROJECTS

facilitation on the gender marker initiative; the marker orientations and ‘how-to’ sessions.
6. COHERENCE OF THE CHAP AND PROJECTS

This is related to the selection issue. The HCT (and ultimately the HC) has the responsibility to
make sure that every project in its CAP really deserves to be there, and therefore the CAP really
deserves to be 100% funded. Otherwise, donors cannot be held accountable for funding
according to humanitarian need. Vetting the project proposals starts in the cluster/sector working
groups. The HC should rely on OCHA to double-check all the projects.
1. Is each project’s description of needs evidence-based, with sources footnoted?

2. Is there a clear link between needs analysis, strategic objectives, cluster/sector response
plans, and specific projects?
3. Is the project within the overall boundaries of need and response set by the HC and HCT for
the CAP?
4. Do the projects directly respond to needs and priorities identified in the CHAP?
5. Have the projects been selected through a peer-review vetting process and according to IASC
humanitarian criteria? Has OCHA reviewed each project to confirm this?
6.
7. PROJECTS AND THE ON-LINE PROJECTS SYSTEM (OPS)

A. The Online Projects System: http://ops.unocha.org
What is OPS?
The On-line Projects System (OPS) is a web-based database that allows UN agencies and NGOs
PART II:
participating in Consolidated or Flash Appeals to directly upload their projects and funding requests
and update them during the course of the appeal. It is a log-in-only system, accessible only to aid
organizations, that serves as a staging area for peer review and eventual electronic publication.
How to access OPS?

UN agencies and NGOs participating in Consolidated or Flash Appeals can request OPS access
by creating an account on-line at http://ops.unocha.org/ and filling the User Profile required
information. Within 24h from submitting the on-line request the database administrator will send
back by e-mail the OPS access link to be activated.
29
What is required to create an account on-line and a User Profile?

Create a new account with your e-mail and password and complete the User Profile by indicating the
COUNTRY where you are based, provide CONTACT details, select the appropriate ROLE and your
ORGANISATION from the lists.
Role Name Role Description

UN/NGO Field Programme Officer If you belong to an appealing organisation (UN

agency/NGO) in the field that wishes to submit a project
Field Cluster/ Sector Lead If you are a Sector/Cluster Coordinator in the field
HQs UN agencies/ NGOs If you are based at a UN Agency/NGO headquarters and

have a review function in the appeal process
PROJECTS and the On-line projectS system (OPS)
(OCHA roles are reserved for OCHA staff, to manage the system.)
What can you do in OPS?

Once the link has been activated, you can upload a new project(s) or revise an existing project(s). To
familiarize yourself with the system and its functions before uploading real projects, you can select
the TEST APPEAL at the top of each appeal list. Feel free to use it to upload a project as a test.
If you are an ordinary user (UN/NGO Field Programme Officer), you can upload and edit projects for
your own organization, and view any other draft projects in the system.
If you are a Cluster/Sector Coordinator, in addition to ‘ordinary user’ functions you can approve or
reject draft projects online (following the verdict of peer review in the cluster/sector).
If you are an HQ user, OPS allows you to help your field colleagues draft and edit projects at any
stage, plus final HQ review.
All users can monitor running totals per cluster/sector, per organization, and for the CAP overall, as
projects are drafted and approved. (This is especially useful for cluster/sector coordinators and the
HC.)
All the project info will be handled on-line, including final review by the HC and HCT, transmission to
OCHA-Geneva and HQs for review, and publication and dissemination via the public Financial
Tracking Service (FTS). On FTS, users can generates a printable compendium of the approved
projects for downloading and printing on demand, for those who insist on a hard copy.
Edit rights and OPS Roles:

7.
UN/NGOs Field Programme Officers may view each other’s projects, but may only edit their own
organization’s projects. Projects are peer-reviewed in the cluster/sector. The Cluster/Sector
Coordinator clicks a button in the system to signal that the project(s) is approved. The HC reviews
projects on-line. Agencies HQs review their projects on-line, and edit them as needed.
PART II:
How to upload a new project on OPS?

To upload a project for an appeal, select your appeal from the appeal list (under the appropriate
appeal year), click on "create a new project", fill in the online project form with the required
information and save it. Your field Cluster/Sector Coordinator will review and approve or reject your
project.
How to revise an existing project in OPS?

If you wish to modify an existing appeal project, click on the REVISE button at the top of the project
online form, make any necessary adjustments and save it.
30
Let us help you

For further guidance on registration, uploading new projects, revisions and cancelling/withdrawing
projects please download the OPS manual on-line (in the HELP section). For assistance, contact
the OPS HELP-LINE: Mr. Luciano Natale, Tel. +41 22 917 1761, cap@un.org
The template below (reproduced from the on-line form) contains some guidance for what to put in

each field.
B. Project information for CAP project sheets

(Explanation text in green and example text in blue. You can use this template to prepare
your project info in advance, before going onto OPS to upload it)
(fields marked * are required)
Project Title:* Be concise. Capture the essence of the project. If a project belongs to a sub-

cluster or other special coordination group (e.g. child protection, nutrition,
psycho-social and mental health, etc.), please include those words in the project
title to ensure that requirements and funding can be more easily identified for
advocacy and analytical purposes.
Appealing (Use the search box on OPS to find your organization’s name in the database.
Agency:* The project can have more than one appealing agency on OPS – but each must
have its own budget.)
Requested Budget item

Budget * US$
Cost A (e.g. staff) 100,000
Cost B (e.g. inputs) 50,000
Cost C (e.g. administration) 50,000
TOTAL (OPS will calculate total automatically

200,000
from the lines above.)
NOTE: OPS offers only five (5) budget lines, to keep the information manageable. If your organization’s
standard format has more than 5, just combine some of the smaller ones
Cluster/Sector:* OPS will give you a drop-down menu of the cluster/sector names in your
country.
Project Location Choose ONE location from the drop-down menu that OPS will offer, tailored to
(province, region your 2011 CAP.
etc.): 7.
Objective:* A summary in a sentence or two of what the project aims to achieve. This
should relate directly to one of the cluster/sector objectives.
Beneficiaries: On OPS, don’t put commas between digits. Descriptio

Number n*
Total: 1000 [always individuals
individuals, not
PART II:
households]
Children 500
Women 200
Other Group (specify) 20 communit
y health
promoters
Disaggregate women and girls and boys from TOTAL wherever possible. Use
the description field if you want to present data in a short narrative form.
31
Implementing List partners ONLY in the sense of those whom you will subcontract – NOT
Partners: those with whom you will coordinate. (It’s assumed you’ll coordinate laterally
with the rest of the cluster/sector.) e.g. Ministry of Health, Oxfam
Project Duration
Start Date End Date
(dd/mm/yyyy):*
01/01/2011 31/12/2011
From when to when does the project run? Note that a project’s duration can
exceed one year. In that case, funds requested should be the portion needed
for 2011 only.
Needs, Activities and Output Description
Needs:* (maximum 4,000 characters, which is about 2/3 of a page – NOTE: this is much more
space than was available in the old Word format.)
Activities:* (maximum 4,000 characters, which is about 2/3 of a page – NOTE: this is much more
Outcomes:* (maximum 4,000 characters, which is about 2/3 of a page – NOTE: this is much more
Priority
Priority: Choose the priority rating, as agreed with

your cluster/sector group following peer
review, from the drop-down menu that OPS
will offer (tailored to your 2011 CAP).
Gender Marker
In 2011 a selected number of appeals will introduce the Gender marker.
If your appeal has been selected for the pilot, you will find a gender
marker field to be complete in OPS. Select from the drop-down list as
appropriate. For further guidance on the gender marker please refer to
paragraph XXX of these guidelines,
Additional Project Information
Project Contact Joe Schmoe Warning: this information will eventually be published, to
Name:* allow interested donors to contact the right person in your
organization. So don’t give confidential contact information. Use a
generic contact instead of a name if you prefer (e.g. UNXYZ Donor
Relations Officer). OPS already captures the name of the registered
user who created the project, for internal follow-up if needed.
Project Contact Joe.Schmoe@unxyz.org Warning: this information will eventually be
Email:* published. , to allow interested donors to contact the right person in
your organization. So don’t give confidential contact information. Use
a generic e-mail address if you prefer (e.g. donor-
relations@unxyz.org).
7.
Project Contact Tel. +41 22 XXXXXXX Warning: this information will eventually be
Phone:* published, to allow interested donors to contact the right person in
your organization. So don’t give confidential contact information. Use
your organization’s general phone number if you prefer.
URL for further This is an optional field in which the proposing organization can put a link to
info: a longer document – perhaps a proposal in a longer format, or a detailed
PART II:
needs assessment.
Agency Project This is an optional field in which the agency can note the project code to
Code: which it will refer to this project (or ‘programme,’ or ‘activity’) in its internal
system, for future reference.
32
Screenshot of actual OPS project upload page:

C. Other project issues
1. REDUCE SPLINTERING AND PROLIFERATION OF PROJECTS. “Projects,” as developed for
and listed in CAPs, serve several purposes at once. They are a medium of exchange of
operational information among implementing agencies, for planning and situation monitoring (a
form of 3W). They are units of analysis for measuring achievements and outcomes. They are
fundraising instruments, in the sense that they present a compelling case to entrust funds to the
proposing organization to address a certain set of needs with certain activities, in a package that
donors find convenient to fund. They are also richly detailed informational packets: donors often
closely read project sheets even if they have no intention of funding them, because they find the
detail to be highly informative (for example, what are the technical options for water supply in
eastern Chad? How much does each water point cost? What is the cost per beneficiary?). Taken
7.
together, they form a crucial instrument of advocacy: by presenting the total humanitarian funding
needs for a crisis, they hold donors to account to fund according to need.
Most of this can be accomplished while keeping projects broad (more like ‘programmes’) rather
than narrow (like ‘activities’). The temptation to splinter projects into narrow units is usually done in
PART II:
the belief that this is the only way to achieve certain kinds of information management, often
geographical – details on who does what where. But in practice, this comes at a cost to
information management: for example, the Sudan CAP (‘Work Plan’) 2009 has 997 projects (!), in
large part because they are split along geographical lines. This makes the process of developing
and managing project information very burdensome. It also runs against the systems of some
agencies, who already aggregate their projects in their internal financial systems (often up to the
extreme of one massive project per country). Lastly, it risks increasing transaction costs by
encouraging earmarking by donors to unnecessarily narrow project profiles.
33
The IASC’s advice now is to aggregate projects as much as possible, while retaining the richness of
operational detail in each (what the project will accomplish in which locations). The OPS format
allows enough space for this kind of detail in the text. As a rule of thumb, organizations can aim to
have one project per organization per cluster/sector. (A CAP country that has different ‘planning
regions,’ i.e. regions with very different humanitarian trajectories and hence distinct strategies and
project types, might have one project per organization per cluster/sector per planning region.)
Try not to split projects along geographical lines merely for 3W information: that information can be
better managed in other ways. Sometimes, HCTs anticipate questions about requirements and
funding per geographical area; but in most cases, this question is only rarely raised (and the answer
is not very meaningful). Therefore it is wasteful to design a whole information system in order to
answer an occasional question.
Certain HCTs may of course find situation-specific reasons to encourage narrow delineations of
projects: for example, donors may be particularly interested in one region or zone, and so it might be
advantageous for fundraising purposes to isolate and highlight the projects dealing with that zone.
But take the IASC’s advice as a starting point.
Please DO formulate your projects in a way that you’re prepared to report on. For example, if you
splinter your nutrition work into 20 different projects (one per district, for example), you should be
prepared to report on funding allocated to each of those 20 projects. If you can’t do that, then
aggregate the projects.
 Activity: a specific task that needs to be accomplished within a defined period of time.
Multiple activities put together can form a project.
 Project: a package of activities under one management unit in one organization, with
boundaries of geography and time, a defined set of objectives, and some internal coherence or
unity. It is, or can be, a unit of analysis for the organization’s internal management (financial,
operational), a medium of exchange of operational information with other organizations, and an
external relations device (a fundraising proposal). In common parlance, a project is larger than
an activity and smaller than a programme.
 Programme: a coherent and linked set of projects and activities by one organization in
(usually) one country.
2. LOCATION REFERENCING. OPS currently has one location field. This will be populated with
the menu of location designations that your HCT has agreed on (for example, provinces, districts,
planning regions, or even countries for regional appeals). This field is admittedly limited, in that it has
only one layer (for example, if the field refers to provinces, there is no second layer of districts within
provinces), and each project can choose only one location from the menu (no capability to reflect
several locations simultaneously, except by including on the menu a catch-all location called
‘multiple’ or ‘national’). However, in the project text, there is ample space to name multiple locations
7.
and give details about which activities each project will include in each location. In the future, OPS
will synchronize with IASC 3W tools to allow more refined location-referencing, as needed. However,
experience has shown that one location field is plenty for most purposes.
3. USING OPS WHERE CONNECTIVITY IS POOR. OPS pages now download about 10 times
PART II:
faster than a year ago, following software enhancement. So organizations that had trouble are
encouraged to try again. However, connectivity will still be too poor for some organizations in the
deep field to use OPS conveniently. In that case, OCHA offers two options. First, cluster/sector
coordinators (and sometimes the OPS focal point in the OCHA field office) should volunteer to upload
projects for the organization, if the organization can manage to send the project information by e-
mail. Second, OCHA expects to introduce a direct OPS e-mail submission function, in which an
organization can receive a project template in Excel format by e-mail (similar to what is shown in
Section B above), and then e-mail the completed template to OPS, which will automatically upload it
as a draft.
34
4. HC APPROVAL. Projects should not be published in the CAP unless approved by the HC. In
practice, the HC will have a defined number of days to review the projects approved by
cluster/sector coordinators; at the end of that period, HC approval is assumed. The headquarters
of appealing organizations also have the right to review their projects before the projects are
published on their behalf in the CAP; however they should not introduce new ones without the HC’s
approval, nor make major changes in the projects already approved by the HC.

(The rule of thumb for what constitutes a ‘major change’ is budget increase or decrease of 50% or
more than $1 million.
► Example: an agency HQ wants to amend a project budget from $500,000 to $600,000. This
is a 20% increase, or $100,000; therefore no HC approval needed to make the amendment.
► Second example: another agency wants to amend a big project’s budget from $50 million to
$60 million. This is also 20%, but $10 million in dollar terms, so the agency HQ should
obtain HC agreement. Note that OCHA’s CAP Section does not have the capacity during

CAP season to seek HC approval on behalf of agency HQs who want to amend the budgets
already approved by the HC. The agency HQ must do so, and communicate the result to
CAP Section.)
5. PROJECT DURATION. The January-December timeline of most CAPs is to be understood as

approximate, for purposes of common planning and consistent budgeting. It’s not a problem to
include projects that are a month or two out of synchronization (starting in February and ending the
following January, for example). De facto, projects don’t start until funding is received anyway,
which can be some months into the year. Multi-year projects should only include requirements for
2011, in other words split their budgets into the (approximate) portion for 2011 (because donors
tend to have only 12-month humanitarian envelopes).
6. HOW TO DEAL WITH PLANNED SUB-CONTRACTING OR PARTNERSHIP

ARRANGEMENTS? Should NGOs list their own proposals directly in CAPs, or should they be
represented in “umbrella” proposals by UN agencies with NGOs as implementing partners? That’s
entirely up to the NGOs and relevant UN agency. There is a risk of delays and losses from pass-
through costs if funds pass through an extra layer. On the other hand, in many situations the
stakeholders agree that this is the best arrangement. But it’s not up to the UN agency or
cluster/sector coordinator to decide alone: all implementing organizations should feel entitled to list
their projects directly. The cluster/sector should discuss this openly and transparently. Whatever
the arrangement, the cluster/sector should avoid double-counting (i.e. listing a funding request as a
direct proposal by the implementing organization, and then including the same actions and funding
needs as part of a larger project with a planned partnership arrangement).
7. “DOs AND DON’Ts” FOR PROJECT SUMMARIES.

Please DO write your summary well. Remember that the summary is an “advertisement” for the
7.
project, and that interested donors will contact the agency if they require additional information.
Now that project sheets are available in searchable format on line (via FTS), donors are
increasingly preparing to use them for funding decisions, ideally as the project narrative to be
annexed to funding contracts. (OPS will soon build a feature that will allow organizations to
convert their project sheets to the formats and definitions used by major donors such as OFDA, or
PART II:
by CERF, and to submit them electronically to the donor.)
DO provide a budget summary for each organization for a joint or multi-agency project. On OPS, if
you indicate two or more proposing organizations, OPS requires a budget summary for each (and
provides a budget table for each).
35
8. EARLY RECOVERY IN CAPS

Early recovery perhaps deserves special mention as a ‘cross-cutting issue.’ Early recovery, which
takes place as a part of humanitarian action, takes advantage of opportunities to reduce aid
dependence and vulnerability and to find durable solutions for displacement. It is often a priority,
because in the medium term it frees up humanitarian resources for acute needs. It is thus one of the
key strategic elements of humanitarian action, in that it aims to move the crisis to an eventual close.
Despite this, early recovery programming is often under-emphasized in CAPs; and donors, for their
part, often find it difficult to fund within the confines of their regulations for use of humanitarian funds,
even though failing to do so may necessitate greater or more prolonged funding for direct relief.
The CAP’s boundaries (see Part I, Section 4) should encompass well-prioritized early recovery
actions that will address time-critical needs and contribute to saving lives and livelihoods. By aiming
to hasten the end of aid dependence and support self-sustained recovery, such actions will also
contribute to the progressive opening of alternative (e.g. non-humanitarian) funding opportunities
(including those related to peace-building, rehabilitation and reconstruction, Multi-Donor Trust
Funds, etc.).
On the basis of reliable and relevant needs analysis by the HCT (including through early inter-sector
post-conflict/disaster needs assessment frameworks), it will be important to ensure that the strategic
EARLY RECOVERY IN CAPS
objectives of the CHAP include a common inter-cluster/sector early recovery strategy. This ER
strategy component should indicate how, in the specific context of each CAP, early recovery:
 addresses time-critical, evidence-based needs;
 has a strong rationale for beginning sooner rather than later and can have a substantial and
rapid impact on the affected populations;
 can be built on and strengthen positive coping mechanisms as well as seize recovery
opportunities with targeted actions that can be effectively implemented within the CAP
timeframe.
Early recovery support opportunities – and related needs and projects - should be identified and
mainstreamed within each CAP cluster/sector as appropriate, in line with the responsibility placed
upon all clusters by the IASC Working Group.
In November 2008, the WG “reaffirmed that all Clusters are accountable for mainstreaming early
recovery into their work at both global and field levels, identifying and removing blocks to further
8.
implementation.” Early recovery areas of intervention that would fall outside the clusters’ scope of
response or could not be effectively mainstreamed (e.g. governance, rule of law, non-agricultural
livelihoods, land and property, reintegration, basic and community infrastructure, etc.) could be
presented in a specific early recovery response plan, usually named after the main sectors
addressed (such as governance and livelihoods cluster or livelihoods and reintegration cluster etc.),
according to the context.
In other words, there may be no need to present a separate ‘early recovery’ sector response plan –
each cluster/sector should be pursuing early recovery within its scope – but the nature of some ER
activities may fall outside the sectors’/clusters’ technical scope, and so could be presented in a
distinct ‘sector’ response plan.
PART II:
36
9. THE GENDER MARKER INITIATIVE
A. WHY DO WE NEED A GENDER MARKER IN THE CAP?

There is universal acceptance that humanitarian assistance must meet the distinct needs of
women, girls, boys and men to generate positive and sustainable outcomes. However, evaluations
of humanitarian effectiveness show gender equality results are weak. Recent reports of the UN

Secretary-General call for tracking of gender-related allocations. Security Council resolutions
require it. The reality is that advancing gender equality requires focused action. The marker was
launched by the Sub-working Groups on Gender and on the CAP to improve humanitarian
programming and make humanitarian response more efficient. It builds on the roll-out of a gender
marker by several UN agencies.
B. WHAT IS THE GENDER MARKER?

The IASC Gender Marker is a tool that codes, on a 0-2a/b scale, whether or not a humanitarian
project is designed well enough to ensure that women/girls and men/boys will benefit equally from
it or that it will advance gender equality in another way. If the project has the potential to contribute
to gender equality, the marker predicts whether the results are likely to be limited or significant.
THE GENDER MARKER INITIATIVE

Gender Description Project Examples
Code
0 There are no signs that gender issues were  Removing rubble, repairing roads,
considered in project design. There is risk installing water systems or providing non-
that the project will unintentionally sustain food items with no indication that females
existing gender inequalities or deepen them. and males have the equal opportunity to
benefit or of differences in male and
female needs, skills, abilities, protection
concerns, etc.
1 The project is designed to contribute in some  Analysing the nutritional needs of men,
limited way to gender equality. The project women, girls and boys; local food
has gender dimensions in only one or two of preparation; cooking & sharing practices
three critical components: but failing to reflect these local gender
1) gender analysis in the needs assessment realities in activities and/or outcomes.
that leads to 2) gender-responsive activities  Setting up separate male/female toilets
and and bath areas for IDPs but providing no
3) related gender outcomes. indication that male and female
beneficiaries have a voice in ensuring the
The design can be stronger and advance facilities are culturally appropriate and
gender equality more. meet their respective needs.
2a The project is designed to contribute  Using vouchers, designed with inputs from
significantly to gender equality. The different male and female farmers, to provide
9.
needs of women/girls and men/boys have agricultural training and inputs equally to
been analyzed in the needs assessment and women and men.
integrated well in the activities and  Providing demand-driven psycho-social
outcomes. services to girl and boy ex-combatants
based on their different needs.
Gender Mainstreaming
2b The principal purpose of the project is to  Providing reproductive health services to
advance gender equality. The entire project men where there is documented unmet
either: need; the existing services only target
a) assists women or men, girls or boys who women.
have special needs or who suffer from  Promoting girls’ education where fewer
PART II:
discrimination / disadvantage, OR girls attend school.

b) focuses all activities on building gender-  Preventing and/or responding to gender-
specific services or more equal relations based violence or to sexual exploitation
between women and men. and abuse by humanitarian workers.
 Conducting sector-wide research into
Targeted Action gender issues.
The marker can be used by project design teams to assess and strengthen the gender equality
potential of projects in any humanitarian appeal or funding mechanism, including CAPs and
projects funded by the CERF and pooled funds. As CERF allocates funds to CAP and Flash
37
Appeal projects, embedding gender equality well in these appeals subsequently brings the double
benefit of bringing gender-responsive design to CERF projects.
C. WHO WILL USE THE GENDER MARKER?

The key users of the gender marker are the clusters/sectors and their project teams. Clusters/sectors
will make gender equality a priority in their cluster/sector response plans which will guide project
partners in designing projects that meet the needs of women, girls, boys and men. Clusters/sectors
will orient project partners in the gender marker. The Gender Marker Toolkit provides cluster/sector-
specific tip sheets that clusters/sector can use to help their partners integrate gender issues into their
projects. Using these tip sheets will assist project teams to identify and respond to the needs of male
and female beneficiaries better. In so doing, their projects will have the best chance of integrating
gender issues well and achieving a good code. The majority of all humanitarian projects should
mainstream gender (code 2a). There should also be a number of targeted actions (code 2b) that
address discrimination and special needs.
Project teams will be encouraged to strive for a good code. Cluster/sector vetting teams will have
final say on the gender code for each project. The gender code will be inserted in the project sheet
on the on-line project system (OPS).
THE GENDER MARKER INITIATIVE
A Guidance Note has been developed to help clusters/sectors consistently assign a gender marker to
their projects. A gender code is assigned based on three critical components: 1) there is gender
analysis in the needs assessment that provides relevant sex and age-disaggregated data and gives
insights into local gender issues; 2) this needs assessment is used to identify activities; and, 3)
gender-related outcomes.
Clusters/sectors will also monitor to see that projects are implemented well to maximize gender
outcomes. Tip sheets and other gender marker materials are available at
http://gencap.oneresponse.info.
D. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE GENDER MARKER?

Cluster/sector Leads and Heads of Agencies are responsible for ensuring that the marker is being
used. Whenever possible, the participation of gender specialists is encouraged. Humanitarian
Coordinators champion and monitor the process; they are to appoint a focal point to oversee the roll
out of the marker.
E. WHERE WILL THE GENDER MARKER BE USED IN 2010?

9.
The IASC Gender Marker was piloted in 2009 in four countries. Lessons learned are informing the
global 2010 Gender Marker roll-out. For 2011, all humanitarian appeals and funding mechanisms
are expected to use the marker to code and improve the gender dimensions of projects. Ten
countries will be assisted by IASC GenCap Advisers in implementing the marker.
Country Level. The marker will be used by clusters/sectors at a country level. Humanitarian Country
Teams will be encouraged to create a fertile environment for advancing gender equality in the
Common Humanitarian Action Plans. They will be asked to integrate gender equality into their needs
assessments, strategic objectives, sector-specific response plans and monitoring frameworks.
PART II:
Global Level. At the global level, the gender marker is being integrated into the training of HCs,
Cluster Leads, CAP and CERF training of trainers; revision of CAP and CERF Guidance Notes; and
a special field for the gender code on the OPS.
For more information on the IASC Gender Marker including the Guidance Note for Establishing a
Tracking System for Gender‐related Allocations in CAPs and cluster‐specific tip sheets visit the One
Response website at http://gender.oneresponse.info or the CAP page
38
10. USEFUL LINKS

GENERAL CAP WEBSITE (www.humanitarianappeal.net) containing policy docs, guidelines,
best practice excerpts, training materials, full CAP document archive, etc.
GLOSSARY

BEST PRACTICES
USEFUL WEBSITES FOR STRATEGIC MONITORING DATA & STATISTICS
Gender Marker information: available on both the CAP website and

http://oneresponse.info/crosscutting/GenCap/Pages/GenCap.aspx.
11. CONTACT US
Name Title E-mail address Telephone
Robert SMITH Chief of Section smith50@un.org +41 22 917 1695
Ysabel FOUGERY Policy Manager fougery@un.org +41 22 917 1400
Luke MCCALLIN Flash Appeal Coordinator mccallin@un.org +41 22 917 1603
10. USEFUL LINKS

CAP Training & Launch
Marie-Sophie RECK reck@un.org +41 22 917 1768
Coordinator
Esther KUISCH FTS Manager kuisch@un.org +41 22 917 3404
Laura CALVIO CAP Information Officer calvio@un.org +41 22 917 1874
Julie THOMPSON Assistant FTS Manager thompson8@un.org +41 22 917 1298
Shelley
HAO, CERF Focal Point cheatham@un.org +41 22 917 1994
CHEATHAM
Miriam LANGE JPO – needs assessments lange1@un.org +41 22 917 1724
Rebecca MALUTO FTS data entry maluto@un.org +41 22 917 1953
Debbie MOJICA FTS data entry mojica@un.org +41 22 917 1757
Computer Information System

Luciano NATALE Assistant / HELP LINE for natalel@un.org +41 22 917 1761
OPS
Documentation Assistant –
Rosa ROSETTI formatting, photos, graphs, rosettir@un.org +41 22 917 1842
etc.
Editorial Assistant (style-

Erlinda UMALI checking, proofreading, umali@un.org +41 22 917 1972
PART II:
printing, distribution )
39
PART III: APPEAL DOCUMENT TEMPLATE
A document template follows. You can save a copy and use it as the basis for your appeal
document (deleting all the sections above). Leave the formatting unchanged as much as possible –
this will make it much easier for OCHA-Geneva to publish your appeal on time.
Note: A page is defined as one A4 size sheet of paper (width 21cm, height: 29.7cm) with margins
set at Right: 2.5cm, Left: 2.5cm, Top: 2cm, Bottom: 2cm and font size set at Arial 10 pt. Line
spacing: exactly 13pt.
In this template, the text in black is headings that you should preserve. Just delete any instructional
text in blue or red when you are done with each chapter.
Links to best practice are available in each section. Take a look at what others have done
before you.
To ensure fast HQ processing time for your CAP document, you should write according to these
guidelines (click to open hyperlink):
Style-checking Guidelines
Formatting Guidelines
Writing and Editing Guide
40
CONSOLIDATED APPEAL DOCUMENT CHECKLIST
Before submitting your document to OCHA Geneva, please use this checklist to ensure that all
the necessary information has been included. This will avoid unnecessary delays in finalising
the appeal document.
Note: these items obviously are not the sum total of what makes a CAP document substantively
good. But the UN has a responsibility to publish only top-quality documents on behalf of the
IASC and people affected by crisis. These details can make the difference between a top-
quality document and one that raises doubts about the quality of the humanitarian response and
coordination. Getting them right in your final field draft will also prevent us from having to call
you on your cellphone at midnight the night before the printing deadline. (Some of these details
aren’t little, either, like the first bullet point.)
Coherence of information
 The number and definition of affected people (and of beneficiaries, if they differ)
disaggregated by sex and age insofar as is possible, is clearly stated in the one-page
Executive Summary. This number is consistent throughout the document. Similarly,
each cluster/sector response plan clearly states the number and definition of affected
people and beneficiaries for its sector (e.g. food beneficiaries, refugees, or malnourished
children), and those numbers are consistent throughout the document.
 The number of affected people is broken down by each of the categories included in the
definition (for example IDPs, IDP host communities, the severely food-insecure)
disaggregated by sex and age insofar as is possible, and also by location if appropriate.
 All tables, maps, graphs and charts are recent or recently updated, and they are referred
to and/or substantively discussed in the text. They all contain a title, source of information
and “as of” date. All tables, maps and graphs, when printed in black and white, are still
easily understandable.
 The labelling of clusters/sectors is consistent throughout the document (e.g. food security
is always food security, and not sometimes referred to as food aid).
 All cluster/sector leads or co-leads are listed in the response plans, with contact
information for the cluster coordinators. There is a table or chart showing humanitarian
coordination structures.
Coherence of the CHAP and projects

 Needs are clearly presented with clear evidence and disaggregation of the gender-
specific needs (i.e. the different needs of women/girls and men/boys) in particular, and
with sources footnoted.
 There is a clear link between strategic objectives and cluster/sector response plans.
 The projects focus on, and cover as much as possible, the needs and priorities identified
in the CHAP.
 The projects have been selected through a vetting process applying clear selection
criteria, and prioritized into at least two tiers.
 Each cluster/sector response plan presents tables that map needs and the projects that
will cover them.
41
Document, attachments and annexes

 Each photo includes a caption and credit (agency or person who took the photo, place,
and year).
 A native speaker of the appeal language has proof-read, spell-checked and grammar-
checked the document.
 Every acronym is spelled out at its first appearance in the text. Acronyms are used only
for phrases that appear more than twice.
 All tables, charts and graphs are provided in editable form – either pasted into the
document as Excel objects, or accompanying the main document in separate files.*
(Please do not paste tables, charts or graphs into the document as pictures – those are
not editable, and they frequently need to be edited here.) If providing charts or graphs as
separate files, the document must clearly indicate which one goes where in the
document, and the files should be clearly labelled.
OPS
 The projects have been approved by the cluster/sector coordinator and reviewed by the
Humanitarian Coordinator (HC).
 All draft projects are either approved or rejected (i.e. none left in ‘draft’ stage on OPS).
 Each project has been given a priority rating, following peer review in the cluster/sector.
 Each project is given a Gender Marker code following review by cluster leads and gender
advisers. (In 2011 the following CAP countries will be rolling out the gender code with
support from GenCap - Chad, Haiti, Kenya, oPt, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and
Zimbabwe).
Date: Verified by: (OCHA field office CAP focal point name)
* Pasting Excel objects into a Word doc tends to make the Word doc very heavy, adding many more kilobytes than the original Excel file.
So it’s often best to send them in a separate Excel file.
42
COUNTRY NAME 2011

[CAP Section will complete the cover, but the OCHA field office
needs to provide a good cover photo.]
SAMPLE OF ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN CONSOLIDATED APPEALS
AARREC COSV HT MDM TGH

ACF CRS Humedica MEDAIR UMCOR
ACTED CWS IA MENTOR UNAIDS
ADRA Danchurchaid ILO MERLIN UNDP
Africare DDG IMC NCA UNDSS
AMI-France Diakonie Emergency Aid INTERMON NPA UNEP
ARC DRC Internews NRC UNESCO
ASB EM-DH INTERSOS OCHA UNFPA
ASI FAO IOM OHCHR UN-HABITAT
AVSI FAR IPHD OXFAM UNHCR
CARE FHI IR PA (formerly ITDG) UNICEF
CARITAS Finnchurchaid IRC PACT UNIFEM
CEMIR INTERNATIONAL FSD IRD PAI UNJLC
CESVI GAA IRIN Plan UNMAS
CFA GOAL IRW PMU-I UNOPS
CHF GTZ Islamic RW PU UNRWA
CHFI GVC JOIN RC/Germany VIS
CISV Handicap International JRS RCO WFP
CMA HealthNet TPO LWF Samaritan's Purse WHO
CONCERN HELP Malaria Consortium Save the Children World Concern
Concern Universal HelpAge International Malteser SECADEV World Relief
COOPI HKI Mercy Corps Solidarités WV
CORDAID Horn Relief MDA SUDO ZOA
TEARFUND
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[Keep this table of contents. You can update the page numbers by right-clicking. The CAP Section
will give it a final formatting, so do not spend too much time on it.]
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1

TABLE I. REQUIREMENTS PER CLUSTER .................................................................................... 4
TABLE II. REQUIREMENTS PER PRIORITY LEVEL ......................................................................... 4
TABLE III. REQUIREMENTS PER ORGANIZATION........................................................................... 4
2. 2010 IN REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 CHANGES IN THE CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 HUMANITARIAN ACHIEVEMENTS AND LESSONS LEARNED .......................................... 5
3. NEEDS ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................... 9
4. THE 2011 COMMON HUMANITARIAN ACTION PLAN ..................................................... 10

4.1 SCENARIOS ................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES FOR HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN 2010 ................................ 10
4.3 STRATEGIC MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................. 10
4.4 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION/CATEGORIZATION OF PROJECTS . 11
4.5 CLUSTER/SECTOR RESPONSE PLANS ........................................................................ 11
4.6 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................................... 15
5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15
ANNEX I. LIST OF PROJECTS ............................................................................................... 17

ANNEX II. NEEDS ASSESSMENT REFERENCE LIST ........................................................ 18
ANNEX III…. ....................................................................................................................................... 18
ANNEX [Y]. DONOR RESPONSE TO THE 2010 APPEAL .................................................... 18
TABLE [V]. REQUIREMENTS AND FUNDING PER CLUSTER/SECTOR ............................................ 18
TABLE [W]. REQUIREMENTS AND FUNDING PER ORGANIZATION ................................................. 18
TABLE [X]. TOTAL FUNDING PER DONOR (TO PROJECTS LISTED IN THE APPEAL) ..................... 18
TABLE [Y]. NON-APPEAL FUNDING PER ORGANIZATION, PER DONOR AND PER SECTOR .......... 18
TABLE [Z]. TOTAL HUMANITARIAN FUNDING PER DONOR (APPEAL PLUS OTHER) ..................... 18
ANNEX [Z]. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. 18
Please note that appeals are revised regularly. The latest version of this document is available
on http://www.humanitarianappeal.net.
Full project details, continually updated, can be viewed, downloaded and printed from
http://fts.unocha.org.
iii
Here the CAP Section will insert the standard OCHA map for your appeal
country or region.
(However, elsewhere in the document, you should insert thematic maps

where needed to illustrate a point. If they’re too heavy (i.e. file size too big),
send them as separate attachments, indicating clearly where they should be
inserted. Please make sure your map is high enough resolution to be
readable once printed! If in doubt, contact rosettir@un.org.)
iv
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(1 Page MAXIMUM, followed by basic statistics and financial summary tables)
Remember, some readers (especially the important ones) may only read the executive summary, so
make sure it is concise, perfectly written, and transmits no more than three clearly articulated
messages. Limit it to one page; if it exceeds one page, it’s not a summary. Avoid using acronyms in
this section unless absolutely necessary; they interrupt the flow.
Key Issues to Include:

Message 1: What is the situation? What is the origin, evolution and likely trajectory of the crisis?
What are the main humanitarian consequences (needs and risks)?
Message 2: What is the overall strategy for humanitarian action, and what accordingly are the
strategic objectives for the next 12 months (or however long your CAP’s planning and
budgeting horizon is)?
Message 3: What is the total amount of money in $ 9 requested? How many people will benefit
from the projects? What are the likely consequences if funds are insufficient?
To make clear the boundaries of humanitarian action Consolidated Appeal for XYZ:
in this plan, fill in the right column of this box (the Key parameters
template at right has sample info) to summarize the Duration: 12 months (January –
key parameters of this appeal, and leave it December 2011)
embedded here it in the executive summary:
Key Harvest: June; planting
milestones in season: October.
2010: Elections: April.
Scheduled repatriation: May.
Target 1.3 million drought-affected,
beneficiaries: 203,000 internally displaced,
56,000 refugees, 24,000
returnees (disaggregated by
sex insofar as is possible)
Total funding Funding request per
request: beneficiary:
$90,123,456 $51
See best practices of executive summaries here:

 Sudan 2010
 oPt 2010
9Editing note: at the document’s first use of the dollar sign ($), we add this standard footnote: All dollar signs in this document denote
United States dollars. Funding for this appeal should be reported to the Financial Tracking Service (FTS, fts@reliefweb.int), which will
display its requirements and funding on the CAP 2011 page.
1
BASIC STATISTICS TABLE: You should fill in the table of basic facts and humanitarian indicators
about the country (format below). This is key to convincing donors of the severity of the crisis. Please
provide the most recent data for each, and specify the source of data. (In the sample table below, we
list some good suggested sources, with hyperlinks.) Show the trend over time if possible, using the
“previously” column. If you do not have previous information, CAP Section will fill in the “previously”
column from the 2010 CAP.
SUGGESTION FOR OCHA FIELD OFFICES: assign your IMO now to start compiling and reviewing
these figures. You and your IMO will have to decide whether to present statistics for the entire
population of the country, or for the crisis-affected segment only.
If the nature of the crisis is that much of the country’s population has been thrust into crisis or at least
extreme risk and vulnerability, then it makes sense for these statistics to refer to the whole population.
If the crisis’ nature is that a segment of the population is clearly (or arguably) in deeper crisis or at
more risk and more vulnerable than the population as a whole, then present statistics for that affected
segment, in order to justify large-scale humanitarian action (especially in countries whose indicators
for the population overall aren’t especially severe).
The statistics marked “m/f” should be disaggregated by sex, because this is likely to illustrate
differential vulnerability along gender lines. This in turn can help a gender analysis.
Use the table as an opportunity to highlight the progress made with regard to critical indicators that
illustrate the overall objectives of the CAP (e.g. reduction in maternal mortality, increase in vaccination
coverage). This standard basic statistics box also has some free spaces for which you can choose
non-standard statistics that make an important point about your crisis. For example, if this year’s CAP
document stresses the importance of IDP return and resettlement, you should add those statistics.
Basic humanitarian and development indicators for [Country/ for crisis affected segment only]
Most recent data Previous data Trend *
(from any recent crisis-specific or pre-crisis
assessment, national census, baseline
DHS, SMART or sources (not older than
suggested below) 2000)
(Source: census if available;
Population otherwise UNFPA’s State of
World’s Population)
[number, gender breakdown
and percentage of population]
Internally displaced people
(Quote from this CAP, or other
agreed source from the field)
Population (UNHCR field office or UNHCR
movements In-country Statistical Online Population
Refugees Database)
(m/f) (UNHCR field office or UNHCR
Abroad Statistical Online Population
Database)
Gross domestic product per (World Bank: Key Development
capita Data & Statistics)
Economic
Percentage of population (UNDP HDR 2010, to be
status
living on less than $1 per published in October 2010])
day
2
Crude mortality rate deaths/10,000/ day

(disaggregated into
male/female m/f)
/100,000 live births (UNICEF:
Maternal mortality
Childinfo statistical tables)
/1,000 (UNICEF: Childinfo
Under-5 mortality m/f
statistical tables)
Years from birth (WHO: Global n/a
Life expectancy m/f Health Observatory, or UNDP
Health HDR upcoming October 2010)
Number of health workforce /10,000 (WHO: Global Health
(MD+nurse+midwife) per Observatory)
10,000 population
Measles vaccination rate (6 (WHO: Global Health
months-15 years) Observatory)
Number of cases or
incidence rate for selected
diseases relevant to the
crisis
% HH according to food
consumption score (<21, 21-
34, 35+)
(The IFPRI Global Hunger
Food Index covers most countries.
Security Other relevant food security IPC covers about 14. Other
indicator methods are done ad hoc.
Consult your food security
cluster/sector to choose the
most appropriate indicator.)
Under-5 global acute Nutrition survey reports Nutrition survey
malnutrition rate (broken reports
Nutrition down by moderate and
severe) or similar nutritional
indicator
Proportion of population (UNDP HDR 2010 to be (UNDP HDR
without sustainable access released in October 2010) [previous
to an improved drinking editions])
water source
WASH
Number of litres potable [data not available as a
water consumed per person standard cross-country
per day in affected indicator; data will have to be
population collected in each crisis]
ECHO Vulnerability and ECHO Global Needs
Crisis Index score Assessment results 2010 10
Other
UNDP Human Development UNDP HDR 2010 to be
vulnerability
Index score released in October 2010
indices
IASC Early Warning - Early [Not available on line – CAP
Action rating Section will fill in]
State here other interesting or relevant statistics concerning the country, e.g.
population growth, unemployment rates, percentage living with HIV/AIDS,
Also:
outbreaks of fighting or diseases, gender equality index, failed state index,
corruption perception index, Gini coefficient on inequalities, etc.
[The categories in the left column are derived from the “Core Human Security Areas” identified by the UN Commission on
Human Security. For more on the concept and applications of human security, see Human Security Now.]
* Use these symbols: ↑ situation improved; ↓ situation worsened; ↔ situation remains more or less
same.
10 You can consult this page for ECHO’s methodological notes and previous years’ results:
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/strategy_en.htm.
3
CAP Section will insert the following three standard tables here:
Table I. Requirements per cluster
Table II. Requirements per priority level
Table III. Requirements per organization
4
2. 2010 IN REVIEW
(5 pages including graphics)
The purpose of this section is to educate the reader on the main causal factors and trajectory
of the crisis; to crystallize the lessons learned from the past year of concerted humanitarian
action; and to reassure donors that their resources are producing concrete outputs which in
turn have the necessary humanitarian impact.
2.1 Changes in the context

(2 pages)
INSTRUCTIONS
This sub-section should outline the root cause of the crisis and its evolution, including any regional or
historical dimensions. Start with an overview of the trends in the previous year – the macro level or
big picture.
Key Questions to Answer

 What are the main causal factors driving the humanitarian crisis, and what has been their trend
over the last year?
 What are the most important factors causing or compounding the humanitarian impact of the
crisis (e.g. displacement, abuse of human rights, exacerbation of existing inequalities like
among gender / ethnic / age groups, loss of livelihoods, interruption of social services, climate
change, environmental, HIV/AIDS, natural disaster, food insecurity)?
 What factors, if any, are contributing to a lack of protection or abuse of human rights?
 What is the national capacity (government and civil society) and willingness to respond to the
crisis?
See best practices here:

 Nepal 2010
 Afghanistan 2009
2.2 Humanitarian achievements and lessons learned

(3 pages)
INSTRUCTIONS
Present the data on outputs and impact from humanitarian action in 2010 to date, based on your 2010
CAP’s strategic objectives and indicators. (Stakeholders expect specific reporting on what was done
with humanitarian funding.) If you made a strategic monitoring matrix in your original 2010 CAP, you
can add the implementation information and include the matrix here (or in annex if it is more than two
pages). If your 2010 CAP did not present strategic objectives and indicators in matrix format, you can
arrange them in this format:
Strategic objectives and achievements in 2010
Strategic Objective 1:
Indicator 2010 Target Achieved
Progress towards Objective 1 and challenges: short narrative that elaborates the progress based
on achieved results and challenges faced.
5
If the matrix by strategic priority is too big, attach it as an annex and summarize what has been
achieved against the targets in a narrative form for each priority. Tell the story behind the figures, the
progress made and the challenges by Objective
If you have no original monitoring matrix and no clear strategic objectives and indicators, you must fix
that as a matter of urgency for your 2011 CAP, but for this 2010 in review section, a concise option is
to present summaries of cluster/sector achievements vs. objectives, like this:
Cluster/Sector targets, achievements and challenges
Cluster/Sector A
Cluster/sector Objectives Indicator 2010 target Achieved
Cluster/sector A Objective 1
Short analysis including
challenges:
Cluster/Sector B
Cluster/sector B Objective 1
Short analysis including
challenges:
If the matrix by cluster is too big, attach it as an annex and summarize what has been achieved
against the targets in a narrative form for each cluster. Tell the story behind the figures, the progress
made and the challenges by cluster.
Remember that donors are always interested in how well the funding they provided was spent, and
what the result of this spending was. As such, always use this section as an opportunity to
demonstrate clear achievements of humanitarian action to date. The more specific information you
provide regarding the last CAP, the more favourably stakeholders will view this CAP.
This is not the best platform for an exhaustive, detailed enumeration of humanitarian actions, projects
and results: space is limited, and the CAP is written only ¾ of the way through the current year. (The
IASC is considering whether to establish a more detailed year-end retrospective CAP analysis, which
would be developed early in the new year, for this purpose.) Use this space instead to demonstrate
needs (as they were at the beginning of the year), effectiveness, and lessons learned, including
gender results – plus to show the fact that you are measuring what you are doing.
6
Key Questions to Answer

1. To what extent has humanitarian action in 2010 met the needs, and why?
2. What proportion of the needs has national capacity (government and civil society) covered in
2010? What has been covered by other actions not counted in the CAP (e.g. ICRC)?
3. Why has the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) achieved or not achieved its goals/priorities?
4. Based on what was achieved or not achieved during the previous appeal period, what lessons
have been taken into account in the CHAP for the coming year?
Remember to focus on the HCT’s overall priorities and goals, not just those of one block of actors (e.g.
the UN) or a single organization. Include the impact of activities outside the CAP. (Some cluster
response plans include the outputs of projects not counted in the CAP as part of the cluster’s overall
target. That’s fine, as long as it is clear and consistent.) Use credible evidence with specific facts and
numbers to back up your statements, like monitoring / assessment / evaluation reports or surveys.
(Do not assume that lack of funding to CAP projects means beneficiaries were not assisted. The
activities in an unfunded CAP project may have been implemented outside the appeal. Cluster/sector
coordinators should be monitoring this, and the CAP should describe it.)
Provide credible evidence of overall results and impact (e.g. changes in mortality/morbidity, protection,
humanitarian space, etc.), not just processes, outputs or relief items supplied. If there have been no
positive results, explain why. If there is insufficient information, state what’s being done about that.
Reporting in the CAP should emphasise the impact on supported populations more than
bureaucratic achievements such as number of meetings held.
Additional themes to address

Humanitarian funding:
 Has the funding response to the CAP been adequate, timely and flexible?
 What was funded outside the CAP, and why was it not counted in the CAP? (See FTS Table
H.)
 Has funding increased or decreased compared to previous years, and why?
 Did donors respond to the prioritization scheme in 2010? (See FTS table on funding response
per priority level.)
 Did clusters/sectors work with donors to direct funds to the most urgent projects?
 What have been the effects of under-funding in the various clusters/sectors?
 Are there innovative financing instruments, like pooled funds?
 How or to what extent has pooled funding improved the quality and efficiency of humanitarian
action (like funding clusters/sectors neglected by donors)?
 How were allocation decisions made for CERF or other pooled funds?
At a minimum, you should present and interpret the following statistics (all available on FTS):
► requirements and funding per cluster or sector;
► requirements and funding per priority level;
► amount of funding inside the CAP vs. outside;
► funding as of late 2010 compared to the same point of previous years, inside CAP and overall
(see previous CAPs for those figures).
Include at least one table/graph that illustrates the key point(s) that you want to make about funding.
Don’t hesitate to contact FTS for suggestions about how to present this information (fts@reliefweb.int;
see also contact list at end of these guidelines).
Humanitarian coordination:
► What actions have been taken to strengthen this function, including the establishment of a
broad-based HCT?
► What progress has been made in developing strong partnerships between UN and non-UN
actors?
7
► Comment on: inclusiveness of clusters/sectors; role of clusters/sectors in identifying needs,

setting priorities, and monitoring impact; modes of coordination among clusters/sectors and
cross-cutting issues’ working groups/advisors/focal points.
Analyse how the cluster/sector coordinators have progressed towards fulfilling their responsibilities –
what are the remaining gaps and how/when will they be filled? Why are the non-CAP projects whose
funding is shown on FTS Table H not counted in the CAP – are those organizations not participating in
the cluster/sector?
Impact of pilot schemes: in any country piloting a “new” approach (for example the gender marker,
pooled funds, or humanitarian dashboard), the CAP should comment on how/whether these
approaches have improved the quality of humanitarian action in the country.
See best practice of Year in Review here:

 Somalia 2010
 Syria 2009
8
3. NEEDS ANALYSIS
(Up to 4 pages including graphics)
For guidance on the process and analyses behind the substance of this section, please refer to
Part I, section 2 of these guidelines.
Example of best practice:

► Somalia 2010
Suggested structure for this section:
1. Analysis of overall underlying and immediate factors and their interrelations across
clusters/sectors
2. Definition and identification of priority humanitarian needs based on key indicators as well
as constraints and challenges in meeting these needs
3. Analysis of interrelations of needs and causes across sectors
4. Critical events timeline

Summarize on a timeline the main critical events and risks occurring in the next 12 months impacting
the needs of the affected people. Below is an example from the Niger Emergency Humanitarian Action
Plan:
5. Needs analysis maps

Include maps showing the concentration of needs in the country according to severity and ,
geographic location, or any other visual representation of relevant data for the needs analysis.
See best practices for maps here:

 Democratic Republic of Congo 2010
See also these needs analyses published as separate documents:

 Nepal 2008
 CDI 2006 (in French)
 OPT 2005
9
4. THE 2011 COMMON HUMANITARIAN ACTION PLAN

4.1 Scenarios
(1 page)
The purpose of scenarios is to ensure that the response plan looks beyond current snapshots
and bases its strategy on the most likely trajectory. A worst-case scenario is also needed to
inform contingency planning; a best-case scenario is included to signal to donors and other
stakeholders that the humanitarian system doesn’t assume the worst, and is ready to scale
back humanitarian action and funding requests if there are signs that the situation is
improving.
INSTRUCTIONS
Choose four or five key variables that will determine humanitarian need (such as displacement,
resettlement, planting or harvest, security, social services, or access). Outline the most likely, best-
case, and worst-case scenarios, following this structure for each:
 Core elements or phenomena;
 Triggers or early warning that would signal that this scenario is starting to happen;
 The effects of this scenario on the key variables (who would be affected and how);
 Outline of how this would affect aid operations, or how response would be carried out in this
environment.
TIP ON PROCESS MANAGEMENT: we suggest that the OCHA country office draft these scenarios
before the CAP workshop, and present them there for adjustment and finalization. If you try to get a
plenary workshop to draft the scenarios from scratch, it will take a long time, and it’s difficult to explain
the purposes and contents of the three scenarios.
Best practice: there is none – no CAP in memory has presented the three scenarios correctly.
Be the first!
4.2 Strategic objectives for humanitarian action in 2011

(1.5 pages including graphics)
For guidance on how to define strategic objectives, please refer to Part I, section 4 of these
guidelines.
See best practices:

 Sri Lanka 2008
4.3 Strategic monitoring plan

For guidance on monitoring, please refer to Part I, section 4 of these guidelines.
A. Strategic indicators and monitoring method
Strategic Objectives
Indicator Target Monitoring method
(abbreviated)
10
See best practices for strategic indicators:

 Somalia 2010
 Zimbabwe 2009
B. Logical framework
Partial example of logframe:

Strategic Objective Key indicators Corresponding Sector Response Plan Objectives
1. Deliver relief items and U5 acute malnutrition; Food Provide monthly packages equating to
services to ensure basic key disease incidence; 2100 Kcal/day to 300,000 beneficiaries
survival needs of the litres/person/day (disaggregated by sex and age here)
300,000 most vulnerable potable water; … Health Immunize 100,000 IDPs and host
IDPs and host families in family boys and girls against measles
the north. (disaggregated by sex and age here)
Wat/San Ensure 15 litres of water per person
living in IDP camps
etc…
2. etc…
See best practices for logframes here:

 Iraq 2009
4.4 Criteria for selection and prioritization of projects

(1 page)
For guidance on selection and prioritization of projects, please refer to Part I, section 5 of these
guidelines.
Best practice:
4.5 Cluster/sector response plans

(3-4 pages per cluster/sector, including table or matrix of needs and planned coverage)
Please first fill out the following two tables to provide a quick overview of the objectives, beneficiaries
and funding required for cluster/sector for the coming year. The second table is useful for
simultaneously disaggregating by sex, stratifying or categorizing, and distinguishing the affected
population versus number of beneficiaries, all at a glance
Cluster/sector Name
Cluster/sector Lead Agency(s) Name (or acronyms) of organization(s) leading the cluster/sector
Implementing Agencies Name (or acronyms) of organizations participating in the cluster/sector
Number of Projects Total number of projects for this cluster/sector
Cluster/sector Objectives Concisely enumerate the objectives that the cluster/sector is seeking to
accomplish for the year
Total Number of Beneficiaries Provide total number here and disaggregated data in the separate table
below
Funds Requested Total funding requested for the year for cluster/sector needs – OPS will give
this total
Funds requested per priority level This info will be available via OPS, but it may require some re-processing
on Excel. If the cluster/sector coordinator can’t manage to produce it,
OCHA CAP Section will fill it in. Example: Immediate ($4,438,724), High
($11,979,253), Medium ($4,350,490).
Contact Information E-mail address of the cluster/sector coordinator
11
Table: Disaggregated number of affected population and beneficiaries

Affected population Beneficiaries
Category [examples]
Female Male Total Female Male Total
IDPs and returnees 102,000 86,000 188,000 102,000 102,000 204,000
Refugees east 148,000 117,000 265,000 140,000 148,000 288,000
Refugees south 600,000 600,000 1,200,000 500,000 400,000 900,000
Host communities 102,000 86,000 188,000 102,000 102,000 204,000
Totals 952,000 889,000 1,841,000 844,000 752,000 1,596,000
INSTRUCTIONS
Each cluster/sector coordinator is to write a succinct overview of priority needs and cluster/sector
response strategy, after consultation among cluster/sector members. Each cluster/sector strategy
must operationalize one or more of the strategic objectives outlined in the previous section. Each
cluster/sector strategy and project portfolio should include the main organizations working in that
cluster/sector.
Early recovery support opportunities – and related needs and projects - should be identified and
mainstreamed within each CAP cluster/sector as appropriate, in line with the responsibility placed
upon all clusters by the IASC Working Group. Please refer to page 35 for more information on early
recovery in CAPs.
CLUSTER/SECTOR RESPONSE PLAN OUTLINE:
4.5.1 Needs Analysis

To guide your needs analysis please refer to the sector-specific guidance in the Needs Analysis
Framework (click here), starting on page 7.
Suggested structure for the cluster/sector needs analysis:
Identification of priority needs based on key indicators

► Analyse the priority needs and geographic priority areas in your cluster/sector with an analysis
of the number and profile (sex, age, etc.) of the affected population.
► Provide a causal analysis of key underlying and immediate causes, as well as coping
mechanisms (positive and negative) and capacities of the affected population.
► In a table, provide an overview of the key indicators to identify priority needs using
corresponding thresholds. Some of these indicators measured to assess needs will be the same
than the ones included in the monitoring plan below.
► Identify any challenges and constraints, such as access and security, in addressing these
needs, including an analysis of the response capacity.
Risk analysis
Identify any factors putting additional risk on the needs of the affected population in the coming
months and which impacts your needs analysis.
Interrelations of needs with other sectors

Identify needs that are closely interlinked with other needs and/or with root causes or immediate
causes in other clusters/sectors, and how this will be addressed in the appeal.
12
Overview of needs analysis in tabular form
Table: Cluster/sector needs analysis overview table

Underlying
Priority Interrelations
Geographical Key Corresponding and Risks
needs with other
priority areas Indicators thresholds immediate identified
identified clusters/sectors
causes
Women
Girls
Boys
Men
Other relevant
categorisation
of
beneficiaries
Total
4.5.2 Objectives, outcomes, outputs, and indicators

For detailed guidance, please refer to Part I, section 4.
The cluster/sector should present SMART objectives – specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and
time-bound. (Between three and six objectives per cluster is a rule of thumb.)
Regarding outputs, the objectives should add up the key tangible outputs of the cluster’s/sector’s
projects taken together. (Note that outputs phrased in this specific way do not need a separate
indicator or target – these are implied already in the planned output, like “55 new functioning water
points capable of at least 10 litres per minute.”)
It’s important to include some planned humanitarian outcomes in your monitoring framework (to the
extent that these can be measured). These are more interesting than mere outputs. Note that desired
outcomes phrased in this specific way serve as their own indicators – you don’t need a separate
indicator. (The table format below has a column for indicators in case you formulate an outcome that
does not automatically imply an indicator.)
Cluster Objectives Outcomes Outputs Indicator with

corresponding target [if
not already implicit]
1. 1.1. 1.1.1.
1.1.2.
1.2.
2.
As a matter of programmatic quality of the planned humanitarian action, cluster/sector objectives

should cover both the direct relief and life/livelihoods-sustaining dimensions, as appropriate.
Cluster/sector objectives should be gender-sensitive for the purposes of the gender marker initiative.
For instance, the inputs might include gender-balanced staff; the process has to provide equal
opportunities for males and females to access training; the outputs aim at achieving gender-balanced
community maintenance teams; the outcomes might be less time spent by women and girls (or
whoever has principal responsibility for water collection) for obtaining water ; the impact might lead to
a decrease in the number of reported incidents of sexual violence because of the siting of water points
in safer locations.
Insofar as is possible and relevant, indicators should capture the progress made towards achieving
the objective as it relates - possibly differently - to women, girls, boys and men.
See best practice here on clear sectoral strategies, objectives and indicators:
13
 Central African Republic 2010 (clear definition of indicators with corresponding target)
 Somalia 2010 (good example of optional arrangement of sector response plan into logframe
format)
4.5.3 Sectoral monitoring plan

For more detailed guidance, please refer to Part I, section 4 of the guidelines.
For the purposes of this sector response plan, the monitoring section should summarize how and how
often the cluster/sector coordinator will track and compile information on outputs to date (with
reference to the relevant sector-wide objectives regarding outputs), and how the cluster/sector will
measure outcomes (with reference to the outcome-focused objectives).
See Best Practices on monitoring arrangements:

 Iraq 2009
 Somalia 2009
4.5.4 Map or table of proposed coverage per site

Present a map or a table of who is planning to cover what needs in what locations. This confirms that
appeal projects match the needs and do not overlap.
Example:
SITE / AREA ORGANIZATIONS

Kisumu World Vision (wat-san), Oxfam (hygiene promotion), ActionAid (provide
Ecoloos, water tanks, transport, supply of chemicals)
Nyamira World Vision (wat-san)
Nairobi World Vision (wat-san)
Mombasa World Vision (wat-san), ActionAid (provide Ecoloos, water tanks, transport,
supply of chemicals)
Eldoret CRS (wat-san), Oxfam (hygiene promotion)
Nakuru IRC (wat-san), ActionAid (provide Ecoloos, water tanks, transport, supply of
chemicals)
Noigam CRS (wat-san)
Turbo CRS (wat-san)
Burnt Forest CRS (wat-san)
Mole IRC (wat-san)
See best practice here (example of mapping who covers what where in the appeal):
14
4.6 Roles and responsibilities

Briefly describe the HCT structure, membership, modes of operation, and links to affected country
government and other actors outside the HCT structure. Describe how the HC will ensure that donors
coordinate among themselves, so that they collectively achieve a balanced and prioritized funding
outcome. Fill in the table below.
Relevant Cluster/sector members

Cluster/sector
Cluster/sector name governmental and other humanitarian
lead
institution stakeholders
5. CONCLUSION
In addition to re-stating key facts and advocacy points, take this opportunity to remind donors about
the consequences of under-funding and the impact it will have on the lives of beneficiary populations.
Furthermore, use this section as an opportunity to provide an outlook for the coming years in the form
of a general way forward after 2011 (for example, plans for early recovery and recovery, or joint
planning with the government).
15
ANNEXES
STANDARD ANNEXES: Annex I will always be the full project list (grouped by cluster/sector), with
hyperlinks to open full project details on OPS/FTS. CAP Section makes and inserts this when the
project info is finalized. (See example below.) Annex II will be the list of needs assessments on which
this CAP is based. The penultimate annex will be “Donor response to the 2010 Appeal,” which CAP
Section will derive from FTS and insert. The last annex will be the List of Acronyms and
Abbreviations.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) normally provides a
two-page input on their strategy and appeal for the crisis, to be annexed to the appeal document. This
is provided by their headquarters directly to the CAP Section; CAP Section will insert it.
Insert additional annexes as required, after Annex II.
16
ANNEX I. LIST OF PROJECTS
[THIS IS A SAMPLE OF THE FIRST PAGE OF A LIST OF PROJECTS, FYI. CAP SECTION WILL
GENERATE AND INSERT THIS TABLE. YOU DON’T NEED TO DO ANYTHING FOR THIS
ANNEX.]
Click on any project code to open the full project sheet. (For a constantly-updated on-line version of
this table, click here: http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R32_A853___1008101916.pdf)
Appealing Requirements
Project code Project title Priority
agency ($)
(click on code to open full project sheet)
COMMON SERVICES
United Nations Humanitarian Air Service
AFG-09/CSS/23700/561
(UNHAS) Afghanistan
WFP 7,457,900 Medium
Coordinating Effective and Rapid Response to
AFG-09/CSS/23729/119
Humanitarian Needs
OCHA 10,995,838 Immediate
Subtotal for COMMON SERVICES 18,453,738
EDUCATION
CARE
AFG-09/E/23705/5645 Community-Based Education (CBE) Project 2,257,855 Medium
International
Capacity Building Initiative for Rolling-out
CARE
AFG-09/E/23708/5645 Minimum Standards for Education in 291,700 Medium
Emergencies International
Increase of Educational Capacity, Peace
AFG-09/E/23710/5834
Education
NRC 960,000 Medium
AFG-09/E/23777/5834 Literacy, numeracy and skills training NRC 1,380,000 Medium
Supporting children with disabilities toward
AFG-09/E/23780/109
inclusion in education and social life.
SC - UK 385,200 Medium
AFG-09/E/23791/109 Supporting working and street children SC - UK 450,000 Medium
AFG-09/E/23796/109 Quality Primary Education Project SC - UK 461,016 Medium
Girls’ Urgent Early Steps for Teaching Success
AFG-09/E/23798/6042 (GUESTS): accelerated education to increase SC - US 1,232,000 Medium
female teachers numbers
Assistance to street working children and their
AFG-09/E/23835/12672
families
ASCHIANA 366,582 Medium
Assistance to IDPs and returnee children and
their families in camps in Kabul, Mazar,
Kandahar, Herat by provision am emergency
AFG-09/E/23837/12672 education package: basic education and health ASCHIANA 254,232 Medium
education, access to basic services like safe
drinking water, food, non-food items’ plus child
rights, peace and gender awareness
AFG-09/E/23840/124 Winter Emergency Preparedness for 2009 UNICEF 2,164,500 Immediate
AFG-09/E/23840/5485 Winter Emergency Preparedness for 2009 SC - US 2,164,500 Immediate
Temporary learning facilities project in 6
AFG-09/E/23841/12654 districts of Baghlan, Takhar and Jawzjan ADPO 97,905 Immediate
province
Subtotal for EDUCATION 12,465,490
EMERGENCY SHELTER
Not
AFG-09/S-NF/23750/298 Shelter Assistance Project (SAP) IOM 1,941,000
specified
Comprehensive Humanitarian Assistance Not
AFG-09/S-NF/23751/298
Project (CHAP)
IOM 3,287,000
specified
17
ANNEX II. NEEDS ASSESSMENTS REFERENCE LIST

Needs Assessment Plan for the 2011 CAP: existing and planned assessments and identification of gaps in assessment
information
EVIDENCE BASE FOR THE 2011 CAP: EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENTS
Geographic
Cluster/ areas and Lead Agency Title or Subject
Date
sector population and Partners [include hyperlink if possible]
groups targeted
CURRENT GAPS IN INFORMATION

Cluster/ Geographic areas and Title/
sector population groups targeted Subject
PLANNED NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

Geographic
Funding
Cluster/ areas and Lead Agency Planned Title/
needed To be funded by
sector population and Partners date Subject
(amount)
groups targeted
ANNEX III….
ANNEX [Y]. DONOR RESPONSE TO THE 2010 APPEAL

[to be inserted by CAP Section]
Table [V]. Requirements and funding per cluster/sector
Table [W]. Requirements and funding per organization
Table [X]. Total funding per donor (to projects listed in the Appeal)
Table [Y]. Non-Appeal funding per organization, per donor and per sector
Table [Z]. Total humanitarian funding per donor (Appeal plus other)
ANNEX [Z]. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS
Use acronyms only if a phrase is spelled out more than twice in the document. If so, spell out the
phrase in the first instance in the text (with the acronym in parentheses), and include acronym and full
phrase in this annex. Be careful that your text is still meaningful to non-expert readers (i.e. avoid too
18
many technical acronyms). Never put an acronym in an appeal draft without providing the full spelling
– the CAP Section cannot track down all acronyms at the peak of appeal season, and therefore may
have to delete the sentence. You can find the CAP’s list of all archived acronyms — over 5,000 —
here. (You can also usually find an acronym’s full spelling by Googling it.)
Put the acronyms in the left column, and name-in-full in the right hand column. Translate names if
necessary. See example below.
AWKAF Ministry of Religious Affairs

CAP Consolidated Appeal or Consolidated Appeal Process
CCA Common Country Assessment
CHAP common humanitarian action plan
When an acronym’s full phrase is in a
EMOP Emergency Operation foreign language, a translation is
ERC Emergency Relief Coordinator preferable.
FA flash appeal
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FTS Financial Tracking Service
KADP Karamoja Agro-pastoral Development Programme

KAP Knowledge Attitude Practice (Surveys)
KAUFO Karamoja and Katakwi Urafiki Foundation
KICWA Kitgum Concerned Women’s Association
KIDDP Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Plan
KISP Karamoja Initiative for Sustainable Peace
KM kilometre
KOKA Kobulubulu, Otuboi, Kalaki and Alwa Women’s Organization (Kaberamaido)
KOSH Karamoja Organization Self Help
[END OF DOCUMENT TEMPLATE]
19

CAP 2011 Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAP 2011 Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KEY POINTS

PART I: GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED

PART II: BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND POLICY ON SUBSTANTIVE &

PART III: APPEAL DOCUMENT TEMPLATE .......................................................................... 40

CAP 2011 Guidelines: Document version 1.0, 18 August 2010

PART I: GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT

1. THE CAP AS A COMMON CYCLE OF HUMANITARIAN

GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

The CAP as a common cycle of humanitarian action

GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

Needs analysis should be evidence-based, inter-agency and multi-sectoral (drawing on needs

See best practice here:

needs analysis. Assessment information can be complemented by surveys, contingency

clusters/sectors which needs to be addressed in the CAP.

KEY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER IN THE NEEDS ANALYSIS:

Your analysis should take into account the following elements:

GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

INTEGRATION OF CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES:

Each CAP should in the needs analysis:

plus any other situation-specific cross-cutting issues.

Humanitarian Action here.

3. Devising a humanitarian strategy

PROCESS MANAGEMENT: Strategy development should be consultative and consensual; but on

GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

WHAT IS A HUMANITARIAN STRATEGY? CAPs are supposed to bring a strategic dimension to

Devising a humanitarian strategy

None of the following is a strategy:

Best practice in strategy statement:

4. Stating strategic objectives and monitoring

PROCESS MANAGEMENT: Like strategy development, articulating strategic objectives etc. is

MAKE SURE YOUR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES HAVE THESE QUALITIES:

GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

Stating strategic objectives and monitoring

See best practices of well-defined strategic objectives:

USEFUL DEFINITIONS FOR PLANNING AND MONITORING

Inputs  activities  outputs  outcomes  Impact

An indicator is a characteristic of a population or environment that is subject to measurement

Key questions in the formulation of indicators:

GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

i. Strategic Indicators and data collection system

Stating strategic objectives and monitoring

Key Issues to Include:

ii. Logical Framework for the Humanitarian Response

Corresponding Sector Response Plan

See best practices for logframes here:

iii. Cluster/Sector monitoring matrix and plan

GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

To summarise, cluster/sector coordinators should plan to gather periodic, real-time information

Criteria for selection and Prioritization of projects

See best practice:

5. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION OF

1. demonstrated relationship to survival requirements of identified group/s of severely

2. demonstrated delivery and implementation capacity by the concerned agency to

1. demonstrated functional/supportive relationship to relief interventions such as:

2. demonstrated agency capacity to procure, deliver and distribute required inputs

3. demonstrated in-country capacity to develop for and maintain the infrastructure

GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL

Criteria for selection and Prioritization of projects

Sample criteria for project selection:

 early recovery (life-/livelihoods-sustaining) or direct relief;

dependence quickly? (If yes, 1 point)

*** ≥ 2 points: top priority; < 2 points: medium priority ***

 Relief vs. recovery/transition;

* ≥ 2 points: top priority; < 2 points: medium priority *