1. Humanitarian Reform / Transformative Agenda in Cote d’Ivoire 18 December 2012

2. Cote d’Ivoire briefing Context A year and a half after the April 2011 post electoral crisis, the socio political situation is stabilising but still fragile. State services are progressively restored, public services are slowly restarting. However, challenges remain: (i) security ; (ii) justice and order; (iii) state services consolidation; (iv) reconciliation and social cohesion; (v) economic growth and fight against poverty. A year and a half after the April 2011 post electoral crisis, the socio political situation is stabilising but still fragile. State services are progressively restored, public services are slowly restarting. However, challenges remain: (i) security ; (ii) justice and order; (iii) state services consolidation; (iv) reconciliation and social cohesion; (v) economic growth and fight against poverty. On the humanitarian front, most IDPs returned home in 2012. There are currently an estimated 81 000 IDPs mainly in host families and 88 000 refugees in neighbouring countries. Residual humanitarian needs in the western and northern parts. On the humanitarian front, most IDPs returned home in 2012. There are currently an estimated 81 000 IDPs mainly in host families and 88 000 refugees in neighbouring countries. Residual humanitarian needs in the western and northern parts.

3. Cote d’Ivoire briefing Humanitarian reform Coordination structures (clusters, ICC, HCT, Humanitarian Information Forum) had all been reactivated by end 2010/early 2011. Their performance was deemed relatively poor by NGO actors (cf December 2011 mission report) due to late implementation, insufficient humanitarian preparedness, lack of dedicated staff, insufficient information exchange between clusters and between the national and regional levels, weak participation, etc). CERF seen by NGOs as putting a real strain on partnership, especially between UN agencies and NGO partners. Coordination structures (clusters, ICC, HCT, Humanitarian Information Forum) had all been reactivated by end 2010/early 2011. Their performance was deemed relatively poor by NGO actors (cf December 2011 mission report) due to late implementation, insufficient humanitarian preparedness, lack of dedicated staff, insufficient information exchange between clusters and between the national and regional levels, weak participation, etc). CERF seen by NGOs as putting a real strain on partnership, especially between UN agencies and NGO partners.

4. Cote d’Ivoire briefing Transformative Agenda Extremely little awareness of TA (not mentioned in a single meeting) Very little impact felt on agencies’ daily business (with the exception of OCHA) General feeling this is not really relevant at a time of transition YET Great potential for improving coordination Extremely little awareness of TA (not mentioned in a single meeting) Very little impact felt on agencies’ daily business (with the exception of OCHA) General feeling this is not really relevant at a time of transition YET Great potential for improving coordination

5. Cote d’Ivoire briefing Transitioning clusters to sectorial groups: why reinvent the wheel? Most clusters are to be deactivated in the coming days. A majority of clusters had been dysfunctional for months due to the non replacement of cluster leads, or unsuccessful handovers, so this boils down to regularising a de facto situation. Surprisingly little guidance on a process which has happened over and again in a number of countries. As a consequence, there is a large span of interpretations of what successful handover means (cf table on the status of clusters) Most clusters are to be deactivated in the coming days. A majority of clusters had been dysfunctional for months due to the non replacement of cluster leads, or unsuccessful handovers, so this boils down to regularising a de facto situation. Surprisingly little guidance on a process which has happened over and again in a number of countries. As a consequence, there is a large span of interpretations of what successful handover means (cf table on the status of clusters)

6. Cote d’Ivoire briefing Deactivating clusters… continued Existing IASC guidance on cluster deactivation does not tell what should be done to ensure ownership. In the field: multiplicity of interlocutors and leadership issues; national v. regional capacity and ability to take on coordination; ministry culture v. humanitarian culture; lack of resources, premises, computer and Internet access, motivation, etc. Whose coordination is it at the end of the day? The humanitarian community or the authorities? Should clusters not relate better to local authorities from the start? Failure in sight

7. Cote d’Ivoire briefing What we’ve been working on Analysing the cluster deactivating process at Abidjan and regional (West) levels and advocating for effective coordination mechanisms and real handover, trying to find patterns for success or failure. Helping NNGOs set a platform where they agree on issues to be collectively advocated for (such as inclusion in the upcoming ‘Groupe de préparation aux urgences‘ and more equitable partnerships as opposed to sub contracting relationships); setting a web portal for better interface with external partners. Supporting INGO advocacy on armed escorts and new DDR logo and heading toward INGO/NNGO common advocacy.

8. Cote d’Ivoire briefing Continued Added value: collective reflection Sensitizing NGO, even UN staff on humanitarian reform, transformative agenda, principles of partnership, humanitarian principles, advocacy. Facilitating their participation in external trainings. Major challenge: humanitarian actors risk becoming sidelined if they are not able to speak with one voice. Major challenge: humanitarian actors risk becoming sidelined if they are not able to speak with one voice.