cluster coordination performance monitoring. overview what is ccpm? ccpm process experience from 5...
TRANSCRIPT
Overview
• What is CCPM?• CCPM process• Experience from 5 Nutrition clusters
– Process- what worked, what worked less well– Compiled results from 5 nutrition cluster CCPM’s
• Next steps for CCPMs
What is the CCPM?
• Arose out of the Transformative Agenda, to improve accountability
• Self-assessment of cluster performance against the 6 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 CPM can be applied by both clusters and sectors
• Implemented since 2013
Why monitor cluster performance?
• 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
The CCPM does not …
• Monitor response (service delivery)
• 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
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 lead clusters
• OCHA-FO: coordinate across clusters (ICC) and ensure engagement of HC/HCT
Step 1: Planning
• HCT decision on CCPM timeframe and participation• Inter-cluster Coordination Group discussion to clarify
– Purpose– Timing– Role of government– Commitment to follow-up
• Output I: Agreement on implementation and timeframe
Step 2: The Survey
Three online questionnaires:• Cluster Description Report (Cluster Coordinator)• Coordination Performance Questionnaire (Cluster
Coordinator)• Coordination Performance Questionnaire (Cluster partners)
– Responses are anonymous– Survey results only shared externally after the cluster has
contextualised it.
• Output II: The survey results are weighted and compiled into a report
Step 3: Cluster analysis and action planning
• Review/amend the Cluster Description Report• Explain/contextualize findings• Identify actions for improvement, timeframe and
entity responsible for follow-up• Pinpoint support requirements • Note: Clusters can request the secretariat of the
global clusters or OCHA-HQ for facilitation support
• Output III: Final CCPM and Action Plan– Shared with the HC/HCT and Global Cluster and, if
applicable, the national authorities
Step 4: Follow-up & Monitoring
Follow-up:• ICC: Review of Reports/Action Plans to identify
common weaknesses to be addressed systematically. • HCT: Presentation of Reports/Action Plans and
discussion of support requirements
Monitoring:• Take stock of progress at monthly cluster meetings• Quarterly progress reporting to the HCT
Output IV: Quarterly reports to HCT
Core area 1: Supporting service delivery
Challenges• Information flow between
MoH and Nutrition Cluster, national and sub-national level and from Cluster team to partners is weak
• Cluster approach and core function not well understood by some partners
• Poor attendance of mtgs by gov and tech staff in field based agencies
What is working well…• In general, partners happy
with how service delivery is going– Reg mtgs are held– Partners list updated
regularly– Websites developed – IM reporting tools available
and used– Capacity mapping completed– Systems to avoid duplications
in place
Overall rating: Good
Core area 2: Informing strategic decision making of HC/HCT
What is working well…..(to partly address this core area)• Some needs
assessments done• Some cross cutting
issues analysed (gender, age)
Challenges• Prioritization of activities
not grounded in strong analysis
• Gap analysis and prioritization of needs jointly with partners and other clusters is weak
• Analysis of some cross cutting issues (HIV/AIDS and disability) weak
Overall rating: Borderline Unsatisfactory
Core area 3: Planning and strategy development
What is working well….• Overall good
application and adherence to existing standards and guidelines
• Strategic plan developed
Challenges• Need to clarify funding
requirements, prioritization and cluster contributions to humanitarian funding considerations
• No deactivation or phase-out strategy
• Limited strategic planning at sub-national level
• Limited sub-national consultation on response plan
Overall rating: wide range good to unsatisfactory
Core area 4: Advocacy
What is working well….• Some satisfied with
advocacy discussions and results
• Advocacy around milk code received unified support
Challenges• Issues requiring advocacy
are not discussed comprehensively within the cluster or proactively taken forward when identified
• Unclear if advocacy issues get raised to HCT, limited feedback
• Advocacy has not been adequately addressed by the cluster
Overall rating: wide range good to weak
Core area 5: Monitoring and reporting
Achievements• Systems for regular
partner reports are in place (with different level of satisfaction)
• Some information regularly shared
• Country bulletins produced
Challenges• Insufficient reporting back to partners
on progress • Field monitoring is infrequent• Unclear mechanisms for sharing
reports with WFP, UNICEF and the Cluster- leads to duplication and gaps
• Quality of partner reports• Timeliness of report submission• Limited consideration of partner
reports in cluster reporting, publication of cluster bulletins and monitoring
• Lessons learned not documented and used for programming
Overall rating: wide range good to satisfactory
Core area 6: Contingency planning/preparedness
Achievements• Partners felt involved in
planning and risk assessments
Challenges• Limited partner involvement
in risk assessment and analysis
• Contingency planning scenarios done by OCHA with no consultation of cluster
• No national contingency plan for nutrition
• Preparedness plans exist but are outdated
Overall rating: satisfactory
Accountability to affected populations
Achievements• Most partners have
organizational mechanisms for this
Challenges• Cluster role in this unclear• No review done of cluster
accountability to affected populations
• Most partners have some but no standard mechanisms and limited mechanisms for response to complaints
Overall rating: satisfactory
Feedback on the process
• CCPM guidance sufficient• Support from Geneva good• Acceptance of the CCPM process at
the country level - more so if cluster is engaged in discussions around the process/timing so as not perceived as imposed by someone else
Learning from this process• Strong understanding of exercise is required by all partners
before exercise and good facilitation for review• Number of respondents/organization - guidance says 1 per
organization but more would be useful• Language very UN focused and questions clearer in English
than French• A need for more flexible questionnaire• Engagement from donors, OCHA and cluster, throughout
the process is required - not dominated by any one. • Need to develop separate donor section for questionnaire.• Sub-national cluster input would add value• Sub-national cluster questionnaire requires adjustments
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 function area of the
cluster• SAG members will chair each group• Select a rapporteur for the group• Read through the country context sheets with CCPM matrix • Review expected outputs under each functional area• Using powerpoint develop 3 slides to answer the following questions
– What are other issues/constraints to effective coordination based on group’s experience around this specific functional area?
– Who takes these issues forward and how? • In the workplan? or roles?
– GNC-CT– SAG– Partners
• If it is not in the workplan, where should it go? And who takes it forward