United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

Performance evidence

Overview

MOPAN released its most recent assessment of OCHA in 2020.

The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is the part of the UN Secretariat mandated with promoting a co-ordinated international response to humanitarian emergencies. Its vision is of a world that comes together to help crisis-affected people rapidly receive the humanitarian assistance they need. It promotes this goal through five core functions: co-ordination, humanitarian financing, policy making, advocacy, and information management. The head of OCHA chairs the highest-level humanitarian co-ordination forum, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), and OCHA also manages two major pooled funds: the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). OCHA occupies a unique and central position in the humanitarian system and its performance is both affected by and directly impacts that broader system’s functioning. As part of the UN Secretariat, it also faces constraints on its ability to offer the agility and flexibility required of a humanitarian organisation with more than 70% of its expenditures in field-based activities.

Performance rating summary

OCHA organisational performance wheel — Organisational performance

Key findings

Coherent mandate and organisational vision.
Reformed organisational structure that is more coherent and better aligned to OCHA’s functions and strategic objectives.
Flexible resource mobilisation and allocation in response to new and evolving crises.
Strong management of pooled funds.
Effective partnerships with other humanitarian actors.
Significant contribution to improving the relevance, timeliness and flexibility of humanitarian operations.
Effective advocacy for key humanitarian reforms, including accountability to affected populations and PSEA.

Changes to OCHA’s strategic direction without sufficient consultation, leading to some uncertainty and lack of buy-in among staff and external partners.
Lack of follow through on a commitment to introducing results-based management.
Weak systems for corporate risk management.
Mixed performance in integrating cross-cutting issues, linked to a lack of resourcing.
Lack of an independent evaluation function and underinvestment in evaluations.