1. Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring GNC Annual Meeting Nairobi, Kenya 13-15 October 2015

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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”.

5. 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

6. CCPM report (sample excerpt)

7. 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

8. Overview of key achievements, issues and challenges by core area from the finalized CCPMs

9. Core Function 1: Supporting service delivery 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) 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 Overall rating: Good. 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

10. Core Function 2: Informing strategic decision making of HC/HCT Remaining challenges: Linkages with other clusters/sectors (AFG, ETH); Capacity of partners on the ground to quickly mobilise teams for assessments (AFG); Lack of uniform reporting of assessments between various regions (AFG); Timing for assessment results’ validation (SSD) What works well: In general, Nutrition assessments/surveys conducted regularly, results validated and shared with partners to inform response priorities; Tools exist and agreed by all partners Overall rating: Satisfactory/Good. 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

11. Core Function 3: Planning and Strategy Development Remaining challenges: Consultation with sub- national level partners (ALL); Short timelines hamper inclusiveness of consultations (ALL); Weak reflection of inter- cluster linkages and cross- cutting issues – age, HIV (ALL); Lack of proper and joint monitoring of the implementation of SRP (SSD). 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). Overall rating: Satisfactory to Good. 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

12. Core Function 4: Advocacy 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) What works well: In general, concerns for advocacy (evidence- based) identified in consultation with partners; Plans to draft strategy (AFG) Overall rating: From Weak to Satisfactory 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

13. Core Function 5: 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 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 Overall rating: More Satisfactory than Good. 5.1 Monitoring and reporting the implementation of the cluster strategy and results; recommending corrective action where necessary

14. Core Function 6: Contingency Planning and Preparedness 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 What works well: In general, partners have their own plans; Consultations take place at the cluster level; Overall rating: More Satisfactory but also Weak (1) 6.1 Contingency planning/preparedness for recurrent disasters whenever feasible and relevant.

15. Accountability to Affected Population 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 What works well: Agencies have their own AAP mechanisms Partners aware of IASC AAP guidelines and minimum commitments and started to mainstream Overall rating: Satisfactory 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.

16. 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?

17. 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

18. 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.