Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring GNC Annual Meeting Nairobi, Kenya 13-15 October 2015 Overview • What is CCPM? • Experiences from Nutrition cluster’s CCPM – Process- what worked, what worked less well – Compiled results from recent nutrition cluster CCPM’s • Work in groups to discuss support needed from the GNC collective What is the CCPM? • Arose out of the Transformative Agenda, to improve accountability • Self-assessment of cluster performance against the six core cluster functions and Accountability to Affected populations: 1. Support service delivery 2. Inform the HC/HCT's strategic decision-making 3. Strategy development 4. Monitor and evaluate performance 5. Capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning. 6. Advocacy +++++ section on Accountability to Affected Populations • Country-led process, supported by Global Clusters and OCHA • The CCPM can be applied by both clusters and sectors • Implemented since 2013 When to implement the CCPM? • Protracted crises: Annually, but clusters decide when to implement it • New emergencies: 3-6 months after the onset and once every year thereafter. • If several core functions have been registered as “Weak”. Who is involved? • Country clusters: coordinator and partners • Global Clusters: Technical and facilitation support • OCHA-HQ: Technical and facilitation support upon request • UNICEF/CLA –Geneva: Technical and facilitation support upon request for all UNICEF-led clusters/AoRs • OCHA-FO: coordinate across clusters (ICC) and ensure engagement of HC/HCT CCPM report (sample excerpt) Progress of Nutrition Clusters’ CCPM from Sep 2014 to Sep 2015 Completed – report validated and action plan agreed by partners (3): • Ethiopia (Jan 2015) • South Sudan (May 2015) • Afghanistan (June 2015) Online phase of CCPM completed – partners and CT completed online questionnaire (4): • CAR (report is validated but action plan not finalised yet) • Mali (report is not validated and action plan is not finalised yet) • Sudan (report is validated and action plan not finalised yet) • Yemen (Dec 2014, final report is not yet finalised) Online phase of CCPM is on-going – partners and CT answering online questionnaire (4): • Nepal ● Somalia • Nigeria ● Chad Planned (3): • S. Turkey for N. Syria ● Yemen • DRC Overview of key achievements, issues and challenges by core area from the finalized CCPMs Core Function 1: Supporting service delivery 1.1. Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed strategic priorities 1.2. Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery Overall rating: Good. What works well: • In general, partners happy with how service delivery is supported: – Regular cluster meetings held – Partners list updated regularly – Websites developed and bulletins issued regularly – IM reporting tools available and used – Capacity mapping completed – Systems to avoid duplications in place Remaining challenges: • Information flow between MoH and Nutrition Cluster, national and sub-national level and from Cluster team to partners is weak (ALL) • Poor attendance of meetings and participation in TWiGs by the Gov’t and tech staff in field based agencies (AFG, SSD) Core Function 2: Informing strategic decision making of HC/HCT 2.1 Needs assessment and gap analysis (across other sectors and within the sector) 2.2 Analysis to identify and address (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication, and cross-cutting issues. 2.3 Prioritization, grounded in response analysis Overall rating: Satisfactory/Good. What works well: Remaining challenges: • In general, Nutrition • Linkages with other assessments/surveys clusters/sectors (AFG, ETH); conducted regularly, results • Capacity of partners on the validated and shared with ground to quickly mobilise partners to inform response teams for assessments priorities; (AFG); • Tools exist and agreed by all • Lack of uniform reporting of partners assessments between various regions (AFG); • Timing for assessment results’ validation (SSD) Core Function 3: Planning and Strategy Development 3.1 Develop sectoral plans, objectives and indicators directly supporting realization of the HC/HCT strategic priorities 3.2 Application and adherence to existing standards and guidelines 3.3 Clarify funding requirements, prioritization, and cluster contributions to HC’s overall humanitarian funding considerations Overall rating: Satisfactory to Good. What works well: • In general, SRPs/HRPs and sectoral plans are developed in consultation with partners; • National guidelines are generally available but some require update (ETH). Remaining challenges: • Consultation with subnational level partners (ALL); • Short timelines hamper inclusiveness of consultations (ALL); • Weak reflection of intercluster linkages and crosscutting issues – age, HIV (ALL); • Lack of proper and joint monitoring of the implementation of SRP (SSD). Core Function 4: Advocacy 4.1 Identify advocacy concerns to contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action 4.2 Undertaking advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and the affected population Overall rating: From Weak to Satisfactory What works well: • In general, concerns for advocacy (evidencebased) identified in consultation with partners; • Plans to draft strategy (AFG) Remaining challenges: • Lack of clear picture in terms of what to do (SSD, ETH); • Limited experience and lessons learned to draw upon (AFG); • Various understanding of advocacy amongst partners (ETH) and some Gov’t concerns (ETH) Core Function 5: Monitoring and Reporting 5.1 Monitoring and reporting the implementation of the cluster strategy and results; recommending corrective action where necessary Overall rating: More Satisfactory than Good. What works well: • In general, tools for monitoring are place and agreed by all partners; • Clusters databases updated and monitoring results shared on a regular basis to inform response planning • Use of modern technology for monitoring and reporting Remaining challenges: • Timeliness, quality and completeness of reporting by partners (ALL); • Monitoring on sub-national level (quality of programmes vs coordination); • Capacity of partners to follow monitoring report formats (AFG) • Security hampers monitoring efforts Core Function 6: Contingency Planning and Preparedness 6.1 Contingency planning/preparedness for recurrent disasters whenever feasible and relevant. Overall rating: More Satisfactory but also Weak (1) What works well: • In general, partners have their own plans; • Consultations take place at the cluster level; Remaining challenges: • Plans are fragmented and not aligned within the cluster and inter-cluster (SSD); • Funding for preparedness and contingency is a challenge (AFG); • Lack of overall cluster plan due to delays of templates from OCHA Accountability to Affected Population Disaster-affected people conduct or actively participate in regular meetings on how to organize and implement the response; agencies have investigated and, as appropriate, acted upon feedback received about the assistance provided. Overall rating: Satisfactory What works well: • Agencies have their own AAP mechanisms • Partners aware of IASC AAP guidelines and minimum commitments and started to mainstream Remaining challenges: • Community engagement in assessments, planning and monitoring remains a challenge (ETH, AFG) • Most partners have no or limited mechanisms for feedback and response to complaints Feedback on the process • CCPM guidance sufficient • Support from Geneva (GNC-CT and GCCU) good • Acceptance of the CCPM process at the country level - more so if cluster partners are engaged in discussions around the process/timing so as not perceived as imposed by someone else • How to reflect sub-national coordination and involve sub-national partners (timing, language, etc)in the CCPM process? CCPMs next steps • CCPMs are country driven and planned • GNC-CT encourages country clusters to conduct CCPMs and is here to support with the process – Review reports – Advocacy – Surge support to facilitate CCPM discussions Group work • Divide into 6 groups- each representing one core cluster function • Select a chair and the rapporteur for the group • Using PowerPoint develop 2 slides to answer the following questions: – What are the issues/constraints to effective coordination around the specific core function assigned to your group? – What are ways to address the challenges, focusing on how the GNC as a collective (GNC-CT and global level partners) could support addressing them.