24 January 2018 Juba, Republic of South Sudan South Sudan Nutrition Cluster Performance Monitoring (CCPM) Review Workshop: Preliminary results 24 January 2018 Juba, Republic of South Sudan South Sudan Nutrition Cluster

Objectives of South Sudan Nutrition CCPM First CCPM took place in 2014 Regular CCPM exercises in 2015 and 2016-17; Ensure efficient and effective coordination Take stock of what functional areas work well and what areas need improvement Raise awareness of support needed from the HC/HCT, cluster lead agencies, global clusters or cluster partners Opportunity for self-reflection Strengthening transparency and partnership within the cluster Show the added value and justify the costs of coordination

Remember that CCPM DOES NOT… Monitor response (service delivery by partners) Evaluate individual partners or coordinators Evaluate if/when clusters should be deactivated, merged etc. (Review of the cluster architecture) Exclude usage of other tools with the same purpose

Process of South Sudan Nutrition CCPM Step 1, Planning: November 2017 Step 2, On-line CCPM Survey: December 2017- January 2018. Preliminary report issued XX January 2018 and shared with all cluster partners Step 3, Cluster analysis and action planning: CCPM Workshop and development of the Action Plan to improve performance – 24 January 2018 Step 4, Follow-up and Monitoring : Finalisation of the Action Plan, presentation to the HCT/Government, implementation of the Action Plan

South Sudan Nutrition CCPM 2017-2018: Response Rates Partner Type Number of responded partners Total number of partners Response Rate (%) Donors 5 0.0% International NGOs 20 28 71.4% National Authority 1 100.0% National NGOs 11 17 64.7% ICRC/IFRC UN Organizations 4 Total 36 56 64%

Scores and Colour Coding Performance Status > 75% Good 51-75% Satisfactory, needs minor improvement 26-50% Unsatisfactory, needs major improvement ≤ 25% Weak

1. Supporting Service Delivery IASC core functions Indicative characteristics of functions Score S. Sudan Cluster 2015 2016-2017 2017-2018 1.1 Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed strategic priorities Established, relevant coordination mechanism recognizing national systems, subnational and co-lead aspects; stakeholders participating regularly and effectively; cluster coordinator active in inter-cluster and related meetings. Good 1.2 Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery Cluster partner engagement in dynamic mapping of presence and capacity (4W); information sharing across clusters in line with joint Strategic Objectives. Satisfactory

Indicative characteristics of functions 2. Informing strategic decision-making of the HC/HCT for the humanitarian response IASC core functions Indicative characteristics of functions Score S. Sudan Cluster 2015 2016-17 2017-18 2.1 Preparing needs assessments and analysis of gaps (across and within Clusters, using information management tools as needed) to inform the setting of priorities Use of assessment tools in accordance with agreed minimum standards, individual assessment/ survey results shared and/or carried out jointly as appropriate. Satisfactory Good 2.2 Identifying and finding solutions for (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication and cross-cutting issues. Joint analysis for current and anticipated risks, needs, gaps and constraints; cross cutting issues addressed from outset. 2.3 Formulating priorities on the basis of analysis Joint analysis supporting response planning and prioritization in short and medium term.

3. Planning and strategy development IASC core functions Indicative characteristics of functions Score S. Sudan Cluster 2015 2016-2017 2017-18 3.1 Developing sectoral plans, objectives and indicators that directly support realization of the overall response’s strategic objectives Strategic plan based on identified priorities, shows synergies with other sectors against strategic objectives, addresses cross cutting issues, incorporates exit strategy discussion and is developed jointly with partners. Plan is updated regularly and guides response. Satisfactory Good 3.2 Applying and adhering to common standards and guidelines Use of existing national standards and guidelines where possible. Standards and guidance are agreed to, adhered to and reported against. 3.3 Clarifying funding requirements, helping to set priorities, and agreeing Cluster contributions to the HC’s overall humanitarian funding proposals Funding requirements determined with partners, allocation under jointly agreed criteria and prioritization, status tracked and information shared.

4. Monitoring and Evaluating Performance IASC core functions Indicative characteristics of functions Score S. Sudan Cluster 2015 2016-2017 2017-2018 4.1 Monitoring and reporting on activities and needs Formats for monitoring and reporting needs agreed upon and used by cluster partners Reports shared by partners on humanitarian needs are taken into account in cluster reports Formats for monitoring and reporting activities agreed upon and used by cluster partners Reports shared by partners on their activities are taken into account in cluster reports Good 4.2 Measuring progress against the Cluster strategy and agreed results Progress reports or bulletins report using agreed indicators for monitoring humanitarian response 4.3 Recommending corrective action where necessary Cluster bulletins and updates influence partners decisions Cluster has used information to recommend corrective action

5. Building national capacity in contingency planning/preparedness. IASC core functions Indicative characteristics of functions Score S. Sudan Cluster 2015 2016-17 2017-18 5.1 National contingency plans identified, updated and shared National contingency plans identified and shared Satisfactory Good 5.2 Cluster roles and responsibilities defined and understood Role of the Cluster and partners are clearly defined and understood in the Contingency Plan The Cluster has discussed how to strengthen response capacity in country 5.3 Early warning reports shared with partners Early warning reports shared with partners

6. Undertake robust advocacy IASC core functions Indicative characteristics of functions Score S. Sudan Cluster 2015 2016-17 2017-18 4.1 Identify advocacy concerns to contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action Concerns for advocacy identified with partners, including gaps, access, resource needs. Satisfactory Good 4.2 Undertaking advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and the affected population Common advocacy campaign agreed and delivered across partners. Weak

Accountability to affected population AAP Indicative characteristics of functions Score S. Sudan Cluster 2015 2016-17 2017-18 7.1 Mechanisms to consult and involve affected people in decision-making agreed upon and used by partners Satisfactory Good 7.2 Mechanisms to receive, investigate and act upon complaints on the assistance received agreed upon and used by partners 7.3 Key issues relating to protection from sexual exploitation and abuse have been raised and discussed

Next Steps for the CCPM 3. Cluster analysis and action planning In a day meeting, the cluster will discuss and finalise the Cluster Description Report and Coordination Performance Report, and develop an Action Plan. 4. Follow-up and Monitoring The Cluster will continually review the Final Coordination Performance Report and Action Plan. The Coordination Performance Report and Action Plan will be presented to the HCT and global cluster, to identify support requirements. The cluster will continue to monitor the implementation of its Action Plan at regular intervals. 5. Ideally, the cluster should report to the HCT on the progress every quarter.

QUESTIONS?

Group Work The team will divide into four working groups to: Contextualize the findings of the Preliminary Coordination Performance Report (narrative comment boxes). Identify actions for improvements for each of the six cluster functions + AAP. On the basis of these discussions, a Final Cluster Description Report and Final Coordination Performance Report will be produced. Groups: WG1 – cluster functions 1 and 4 WG2 – cluster functions 2 and 3 WG3 – cluster functions 5 and 6 WG4 - AAP

Group work: each group should Review the performance status of the function (color coded in green/yellow/orange/red, and the more detailed scoring of the various questions related to the function) Identify what worked well for that function Discuss possible constraints as well as support requirements for that function Identify other issues relevant to cluster performance that were not included in the survey Identify and prioritise any improvements for that function, add inputs from the plenary feedback Summarise in a Word document

Plenary discussion Report back in plenary; Seek feedback and endorsement on the recommendations from each of the working groups for each of the functions Jointly agree on up to 3-5 priorities follow-up actions to improve performance of any weak core functions (prioritise recommendations, but at least address all functions that are below satisfactory performance). Identify who is following up on each recommended improvement action and by when. It is important to allocate responsibilities at the meeting. Identify opportunities, constraints and/or request support, if needed.