Orientation on Coordinated Assessments The IASC Needs Assessment Task Force

IASC Needs Assessment Task Force “To harmonise and promote cross-sector needs assessment initiatives for consistent, reliable and timely data on humanitarian needs in complex emergencies and natural disasters to strengthen informed decision-making and improve humanitarian response”

Key Outputs Guidance Operational Guidance on Coordinated Assessments Tools Key Humanitarian Indicators Multi Cluster/Sector Initial and Rapid Assessment Humanitarian Dashboard Capacity building Coordinated Assessment Pool and Roster Training

Defining Coordinated Assessments Coordinated assessments are “assessments which are planned and carried out in partnership by humanitarian actors (…) with the results shared with the broader humanitarian community”. There are two types of coordinated assessments: Harmonized Assessment: This is when data collection processing and analysis is undertaken separately, however the data is sufficiently comparable to be compiled into a single database, and to serve as the subject of a shared analysis. Joint Assessment: This is when data collection, processing and analysis form one single process among agencies within and between clusters/sectors. This leads to a single report. This is sometimes also referred to as a 'common assessment'. The MIRA is a joint assessment.

Coordinated Assessments in the Program Cycle

Operational Guidance on Coordinated Assessments in Emergencies Policy framework that outlines the vision for coordinated assessments Establishes a common understanding of how to lead and implement coordinated assessments and analysis in humanitarian crises. THE IASC WORKING GROUP ENDORSED THE OG AT THE NOVEMBER 18 WORKING GROUP MEETING

Approaches to Coordination Together these form the MIRA. During the first 72 hours after a crisis (phase 1), an initial assessment, including secondary data, is undertaken to produce a Preliminary Scenario Definition that outlines the severity of the crisis, projects future trends, and informs the initial Flash Appeal. In the first two weeks (phase 2) a multi-cluster rapid assessment is undertaken jointly by Clusters, in order to support operational planning, and inform the revision of the Flash Appeal. Together these form the MIRA. In the second two weeks (phase 3), Clusters harmonise the in- depth sectoral assessments undertaken by their members, and participate in inter-sectoral analysis. The Humanitarian Dashboard provides a process and platform to present this information.

Assessment Framework MIRA (Multi-cluster Initial and Rapid Assessment) Prepared- ness Saving and sustaining lives and re-establishing essential services Saving livelihoods and re-establishing essential services Timing PHASE 0 Before PHASE 1 72 hours PHASE 2 Week 1-2 PHASE 3 Week 3+ PHASE 4 Second month + RECOMMENDE D TYPE OF COORDI- NATED ASSESS-MENT Coordinated Assessment Preparedness Initial Assessment for Preliminary Scenario Definition Multi Cluster/Sector Rapid Assessment Single Cluster/ Sector coordinated In-depth Assessments, harmonized across Clusters/Sectors Continued Single Cluster/ Sector Coordinated In-depth Assessments, with (early) Recovery considerations, harmonized across Clusters/Sectors ASSESS-MENT TYPE & PURPOSE Coordinated assessment preparedness planning and gathering pre-crisis data Initial Assessment to  Estimate scale & severity of the impact of the event  Locate affected populations  Inform initial response decisions  Inform Phase-2 rapid assessments Rapid assessment to Inform initial planning of humanitarian response, highlighting priority actions  Define focus for follow-on in- depth assessments  Establish the baseline for monitoring In-Depth Assessment to:  Analyze situation and trends  Adjust ongoing response  Inform detailed planning for humanitarian relief/early recovery,  Establish baseline for operational and strategic / performance monitoring In-Depth Assessment to:  Situation/trend analysis  Inform phasing out of life sustaining activities  Inform detailed planning for relief + ER  Feed into performance monitoring METHODO- LOGY FOR DATA COLLECTION  Prepare on assessment formats, indicators and tools  Organize Prepard. trainings, simulations  Establish procedures & responsibilities.  Prepare Common Operational Datasets (CODs), P-Codes, and Key Humanitarian Indicators  Gather Baseline data  Fact sheets + LL  Mostly secondary data: pre-crisis information, surveys and reports prior to the event, fact sheets.  Primary data:  initial reports from the field, media flyovers,  satellite imagery.  Direct observation from quick visits to field (if feasible). Information from still functioning monitoring and reporting systems  Use Initial CODs  Secondary data; various sources  Primary data as in Phase 1, complemented by site visits purposively selected, conducting community / key informant interviews  Unit of measurement for site visits is Community (e.g. village, camp or neighborhoods), or Institutions (e.g. schools, health facilities).  Use simple agreed form with key questions  CODs + Key Indicators  Secondary data; various sources  Harmonized sector/cluster tools  Primary data + site visits with purposive/representative sampling methods ( detailed sectoral questionnaires).  New data from (re)-established monitoring system  Unit of measurement Communities, household & individual.  Use CODs + Key indicators  Sources and Methods as in Phase 3  For recovery assessment use additional guidance for recovery assessment (Damage and Loss Assessment and sectoral PDNA guidance)  In case of complex emergencies; conflict analysis INFORM FUNDING PROPOSALS  Proposals for preparedness  Allocation of preliminary emergency funding  Initial Flash Appeal  First response proposals  Emergency response proposals  Revision of Flash Appeal (occurs within one month of Initial Flash Appeal)  Revised emergency response proposals.  National Recovery and Reconstruction Plan  Nat’l Recovery & Reconstruction Plan  Consolidated appeal.  Inputs for the PDNAt OUTPUTS  Assessment Prepared. plan agreed by HCT  Compiled pre-crisis data + Humanitarian Dashboard  Preliminary Scenario Definition (within 3 days)  Humanitarian Dashboard  MIRA Report (within 14 days)  Humanitarian Dashboard  Sector/Cluster Reports  Humanitarian Dashboard  Sector/Cluster Reports  PDNA & Recovery Framework  Humanitarian Dashboard MIRA (Multi-cluster Initial and Rapid Assessment) Continued Inter-Cluster/Sector Assessment Coordination

Process for Developing the MIRA September 2010: Agreement to develop joint (common assessment approach) for the earliest stages of an emergency. Establishment of a small technical working group ( WHO, ACAPS, UNHCR, OCHA, WFP) December 2010: NATF Workshop on the MIRA: Agreement on key conceptual issues January to August 2011: NATF meetings/workshops to further define the MIRA Technical briefs providing in-depth resources developed by ACAPS September 2011: NATF inter-agency mission to Philippines to seek feedback on MIRA approach Development of an action plan to field test the MIRA

Proposed Components of MIRA Action Plan A. Focus on preparedness: Missions to support country teams to undertake a MIRA and coordinated assessment approach in a disaster B. Global level surge: To undertake a multi- cluster assessment (MIRA) C. Coordinated assessments in CAP countries D. Lessons-learned Integration into other IASC groups (cluster sub- working group, CAP and preparedness)

Focus on preparedness: Critical 1) The MIRA roll-out may consist of inter-agency sensitization missions (ie, Philippines) followed by sustained technical support as required. 2) Agencies to identify capacity to participate in preparedness missions/capacity-building exercises. 3) ACAPS/CASPAR roster (and others?) to provide longer-term technical support to countries to take on board NATF Operational Guidance and adapt the MIRA to national circumstances. 4) Training and capacity-building at national level. OCHA to provide assessment coordination function, working in partnership for training, technical support, etc. (in non-refugee settings) 5) Lessons learned should be fed back to the NATF to revise tools, training materials, etc.

Global Surge Capacity 1) HQ level surge only in major emergencies 2) Should be configured in line with the rapid response mechanism proposed by the IASC Principals Task Team. 3) Clusters and OCHA should ensure capacity is available to deploy in mega-emergencies to assume clear functions. 4) These MIRA HQ teams should be pre-trained at HQ level and activated in line with rapid response mechanisms and agencies’/clusters’ own surge systems. 5) Need to test the MIRA in an emergency setting

Coordinated assessments in CAP countries Reviewing assessment data and gaps Maintaining a Humanitarian Dashboard to track ongoing needs and coverage Undertaking assessments to fill information gaps as part of the mid-year review of the CAP and new CAP process at end of year Identifying capacity-building and technical support requirements for country team to improve assessment outputs

Conclusions 1)Need to focus on operationalising tools and guidance- shift to the country level 2)Ongoing normative work required especially in relation to incorporating lessons learned and improving the Humanitarian Dashboard 3)Mainstreaming through other IASC mechanisms rather than a stand-alone approach