17 th GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER MEETING Centre Oecumenique 150 ...washcluster.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/06/17th-GWC-mtg... · 17 th GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER MEETING Centre Oecumenique

17th

GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER MEETING

Centre Oecumenique

150 Route de Ferney, Geneva, Switzerland

7 and 8 May, 2013

Minutes of Meeting

Decisions ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Minutes ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Day 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Day 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 22

Decisions

• Advocacy indicators were agreed – Session 03

• Mid-Term Review of the Strategic Plan 2011-15 completed – Session 07

Minutes

Day 1

Session 01 Global WASH Cluster Update – Paul Shanahan (CAST)

Summary

1. Effective Coordination of the GWC.

Frank Bouvet compiles and circulates quarterly monitoring of the status of implementation of

the GWC Strategic Plan using a traffic light system (see annex). This shows good progress overall

but a couple of items are lagging.

Those outputs currently showing as behind schedule (red) are:

• Output 3.4 ‘Partners play an active role in making cluster effective both at HQ and in

Missions’

- The RED indicator derives from an absence of reporting which, results from the

indicator being weak. It is more a case that we don’t know what partners

activities are than there is no activity. Some agencies are making a significant

effort (especially at HQ level, less at national level) but it’s very variable across

the partnership. This has an impact on the GWC ability to provide support at

Global Level.

- Some partners reliably let the CAST know when their missions are encountering

difficulties in the field – but these remain few.

- Partners are encouraged try and get a feel for how their missions at national

Minutes 17th Global WASH Cluster Meeting Page 2

level are engaging in humanitarian WASH Coordination and, if they become

aware of emerging concerns, to bring them up with CAST.

• Output 4.1 and output indicator 412, ‘WASH partners can demonstrate that WASH

programmes have changed- either what they do or how they do it- as a result of

feedback from beneficiaries.’

- Good work is being done but the information on this work is not being relayed.

• Outcome 5, ‘Operational advocacy for WASH as an essential part of Humanitarian

Response and Communication in both emergency and development’. Outputs 1, 3, 4 and

5 were red and highlight weaknesses in operational advocacy.

- ECHO has come forward with encouragement and resources to allow us to make

more progress.

- Significant work has been done by the SAG and Frank Bouvet. The results of

which are presented in Session 03.

2. The GWC has received a letter dated Jan 1st

2013 from IASC principals with an update on the

Transformative Agenda (TA) process.

This letter:

• Distributes the following TA protocols:

− Concept Paper on ‘Empowered Leadership’;

− Humanitarian System-Wide Emergency Activation: definition and procedures;

− Responding to Level 3 Emergencies: What ‘Empowered Leadership’ looks like in

practice;

− Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at the Country Level; and

− Responding to Level 3 Emergencies: The Humanitarian Program Cycle

• Advises that three additional documents will be produced in the first quarter of 2013 to

complete the set:

- Concept paper on the Inter-Agency Rapid Response Mechanism

- Common Framework for Capacity Development for Emergency Preparedness;

- Operational Framework for Accountability to Affected Populations

• Provides an important clarification, namely;

While the focus of the TA has been on massive, 'Level 3' emergencies, most of the TA --

apart from some of the elements related to system-wide activation and empowered

leadership -- will generally apply in non-L3 situations.

3. Cluster Performance Monitoring

OCHA has been developing and rolling out a standard Cluster Performance Monitoring

process. A tool to support this process was developed jointly by the Food Security and

Health Clsuters process, developed by the global cluster coordinators of the FS and Health

clusters.

− The GWC communicated to OCHA that the emphasis has shifted from actual

performance to the operation of the tool.

− The focus of the tool must be in understanding the cluster.

− The tool appears to be based on top-down demand. It must be of value at a


national level otherwise people are not satisfied.

− The next steps with regard to the tool are unclear as concerns are mounting.

− A tri-cluster trial in Somalia in December 2013 will be undertaken to assess the

tool.

4. Timely support national coordination platforms

• The Rapid Response Team and the Rapid Assessment Team are operating at a good level

with support from the Cluster Advocacy and Support Team (CAST).

• The regional distribution of RRT efforts have been:

o 64% in west and central Africa

o 14% Middle East North Africa

o 11% south Asia

o 10% East and Southern Africa and

o 1% East Asia Pacific.

• Deployment protocols were changed to bemore rigorous and to reinforce the rotation

system.

• The Rapid Assessment Team experienced early problems however modifications and a

more targeted operational approach lead to significant improvements.

• Key Achievements:

o Deployment to Amman where a municipal level assessment of WASH needs in

13 of 14 governorates in Syria at was completed. By mid-December there was an

assessment of municipal level infrastructure. However the authorities did not

agree to the two other stages of assessment.( Community level assessment and

household level assessment)

o Support was also provided to Lebanon to put WASH assessment on a systematic

footing.

5. Improved emergency preparedness of emergency WASH stakeholders.

• Emergency preparedness: Stocktaking, dissemination, adaptation and adoption of

tools.

• The RECAs have played a significant role.

• The comprehensive stocktaking of tools was undertaken through IM project using

the RRT non-deployment capacity.

• Joint monitoring mission of the RRT and RECA projects in East and Southern Africa

was completed with positive findings

• The wrap up of phase 1 of the RECA project with the completion of the

implementation of a consolidated work plan and activities in targeted countries of

the 6 regions, RECAs self-evaluation and an external evaluation of the RECA project-

report.

• Phase 2 has been approved using a process that involved SAG and CAST input and

approval.

6. Looking forward.

• Significant emergencies are in progress.

• Continued effort is required to support the implementation of the

Transformative Agenda especially at the national level.

• Improved effectiveness of field support capacity is also required; the objective

has been established however the pathway to reach this objective is still


unknown.

• A more sophisticated working arrangement is also required. The annual election

of SAG members is to take place.

Q&A

There are recorded 42 countries in which we currently have cluster or cluster-like activities,

However this could be an overstatement and, in terms of preparedness, there are around 35.

For a long time lack of knowledge was the problem, now the issue is lack of strategy. Clusters

want to facilitate peer to peer, horizontal sharing between clusters and this must be fixed.

Annex

• 01 Global WASH Cluster Update.pptx

• 01A 2013-01_WASH Cluster Strategy Monitoring- Implementation.pdf

Session

02

Integration of the RAT, RRT and RECA teams – Paul Shanahan

Summary

• Slide 2 demonstrates the number of field support resources and their roles, donors,

funding mechanism, location when not deployed and location when deployed (See

ppt 02 in Annex, slide 2).

• The RAT, RRT and RECA teams are supported by donors however the base of

participation must be broadened to avoid stagnation. All partners are needed to

facilitate the task and overall participation must be increased.

• Slide 3 stipulates which partner has grant accountability for which area of RAT, RECA

or RRT (See ppt 02 in Annex).

• Building capacity and making the group of wash professionals support the national

clusters has been very challenging.

• One RECA coordinator will be based in Geneva in order to align the entire group into

a field support team, build capacity of selected national Wash cluster and to sustain

a unit that will support the field in a crisis.

• The timeline for having a joint field support team and having management

structures in place is around three months.

• CAST and SAG need to come together to identify priority countries in Phase 2. More

needs to be done about the integration of the work plan.

• The coordinated work plan will achieve a higher level of integration.

• The RRT has been closely linked with CAST from its inception.

• The RAT has moved closer to CAST over the past 12 months and there is now a

coordinated approach to field deployment decisions.

• The RECA has always been more independent but there is now recognition that we

need to move to an integrated approach to WASH cluster support to national

coordination.

Annexes

• 02 D1-2 RAT-RECA-RRT.pptx


Session 03 Advocacy: What do we advocate for? – Frank Bouvet

Summary

GWC purpose:

• Improve national and subnational WASH coordination platforms.

- Go beyond cluster coordination and look at sector coordination

- Develop a coherent approach and efficient support to countries

- Have strong commitment from each partner organisation.

Progresses and Objectives:

• Partners were requested to inject their interests by writing up concepts that would

help the GWC to develop advocacy.

• AFC did so and drafted a concept note which was shared with SAG who worked on

the note to develop a more sustainable approach.

• Many countries to focus on outcome 5 of the Strategic Plan

Methodology:

• CAST have proposed to SAG the advocacy objectives

• SAG members provided their views and comments

• CAST then formulated amended advocacy objectives

• Ranking and agreement was reached by the SAG members.

Strategic Plan Output:

• 5.1 output indicator: % of high risk countries with a minimum coordination package*

for humanitarian WASH response.

* Minimum coordination package includes:

1. Coordination arrangements

2. Sector capacity mapping

3. Arrangement for initial assessment and information management

4. Definition of preliminary scenario for initial response

(If all the four needs are met, the country is considered prepared.)

• 5.2 output indicator: % of underfunded** WASH humanitarian responses supported

by an active WASH advocacy strategy.

** underfunded: WASH sector funding <80% of average funding level across sectors.

Chronic/silent emergencies are not addressed therefore national coordination

platforms must have an advocacy strategy to raise awareness, fund and support.

Next steps:

• Confirm agreement on advocacy objectives

• Identify responsible agencies

• Identify supporting agencies

• Develop 2013-2015 work plan and budget

• Implement strategy

Annexes

• 03 GWC17- Advocacy.pptx


Session 04 Humanitarian Innovation Fund Gap Analysis in emergency

WASH- Andy Bastable & Lucy Russell

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Gap Analysis in Emergency WASH 2013:

Aim:

• To identify technical (hardware or software) gaps still facing emergency WASH programmes

that are open to creative solutions.

• Seek innovative solutions, once found, test them and if successful; scale them up and share

with the whole sector.

Method:

• A survey of emergency WASH practitioners was used in order to identify the gaps as they

affect

- INGOs and NGOs

- International Donors

- WASH clusters & Consortiums (+RECAs)

• A literature search was undertaken

• Beneficiaries’ opinions were solicited through focus group discussions.

Results:

• The most frequently raised issues: (In order of number of times raised, top 10)

- Latrine emptying

- Excreta disposal, particularly in urban and flooded areas

- Challenges of building latrines particularly in urban areas, rock soil, and making

latrines eco-friendly

- Maintenance, sustainability and cleaning of latrines

- Importance of hygiene promotion (HP) and the need for better understanding

- Need for low-tech solutions acceptable and sustainable by locals

- General drainage from showers and wash units

- Hand washing uptake and sustained practice with or without soap

- Extending HP to schools and other groups

- Menstrual hygiene issues and a need for more female staff

• What the important issues are according to a GWC gap analysis workshop:

- Excreta disposal in difficult environments including final deposition site for de-

sludged excreta

- WASH in urban environments

- Transition from emergency to development – policy and practice and sustainability

- Evidence base for what works in hygiene promotion and community mobilization

- Capacity building of local partners/national training initiatives

- Hand washing – promotion of no soap and no water options

- Development of exit strategies from WASH and Cluster

- Management of facilities during and after

- WASH response to drought


- Targeting gender and vulnerable groups in emergencies

Going forward:

• Phase 1: Carry out multi-level emergency WASH gap analysis to establish a prioritisation of

the WASH problem statements. (completed)

• Phase 2 : Develop a plan to determine how each gap can be resolved (Will take 3 months)

• Phase 3: Implement the strategies defined from phase 2 (12 months)

• Phase 4: Disseminate the results from the trials and research in phase 3 (3 months)

Annex

• 04 HIF Gap analysis- MayGWC.ppt

Session 05 UNESCO- Groundwater Resources Investigation for Drought

Mitigation in Africa Programme - Alexandros Makarigakis

Groundwater Resources Investigation for Drought Mitigation in Africa Program (GRIDMAP):

A regional scientific initiative aimed at combating climate change in water-scarce areas of Africa. It

does this by identifying emergency and sustainable water supplies and delivering measures to

mitigate long-term drought and famine.

Operational drought monitoring advantages:

• Availability of data on a near real time basis

• National/ regional coverage

• Complete historical data sets to from basis for comparison.

UNESCO and the University of Princeton have worked with African institutions to test and validate

the systems.

A component of this program is the use of Watex:

• Allows for detection of high potential alluvial aquifers and has already been tested on the

area in the Ethiopian highlands comparing the Jerer and Fafen valleys.

• Once the high potential for aquifer areas are identified, the areas that will be most

productive for drilling are identified using a groundwater target map.

• The mapping encounters trouble when mapping wetter areas, the dryer the area - the more

accurate.

• To date this mapping system has found 5 deep aquifer reserves never previously mapped or

assessed. Potential for economic development as well as the potential to sustain current

influxes of refugees were described.

• The level of accuracy and drilling of successful boreholes was stated to be 97%. However

there is little evaluation or data available as to the water quality.

• Management, further scientific study and training are required following the mapping and

drilling process. Moreover, sustainability of the water source is essential and national/local

involvement and ownership is critical.


Strategic strengthening of flood warning and management capacity in Pakistan:

• Flood forecasting will be introduced by a new system utilising satellite data

• Updating flood hazard maps in the lower Indus region to cover the new inundated

areas.

• The Integrated Flood Analysis System (IFAS) uses satellite information on rainfall,

basin features with ground rainfall gauges in order to forecast flood events. This

system was tested in 2012 and the validation and updates are to be done in 2013.

Annex

• 05 GRIDMAP WASH Cluster.pptx

Session 06 Preparedness and Resilience WASH Cluster Meeting - Michel Le

Pechoux

10-13

Participants were asked to define the concept of resilience and preparedness.

The results illustrate that the definition is not clear cut and that it can involve many different

aspects.

Definitions were given of resilience, preparedness; disaster risk management and disaster risk

reduction (please see ppt 06 for details).

Contribution of the WASH cluster to resilience:

• Increasing readiness of the cluster to respond to emergencies in risk-prone countries

• Supporting predictable investment in capacity development of national/local actors.

• Ensuring humanitarian responses build on existing national/local capacities and reduce risk

in response.

• At a country level the scope would be wider; for example investing in water systems that will

withstand shock.

Preparedness in the Transformative agenda:

• Readiness of the humanitarian system to effectively respond

• Investing in local capacity (highlighted as the most important issue)

Readiness of humanitarian system to respond to emergencies:

In countries with recurrent emergencies, resilience work is that of the development community (e.g.

countries with repeated cholera incidents.) Humanitarian actors are required as development actors

do not have the appropriate expertise on their own.

Preparedness is in each of the dimensions of the humanitarian project cycle. (See slide 10 in ppt 06

in Annex)

Interagency contingency planning:

• Country risk profile, to identify which clusters might be needed and what risk could affect

cluster-specific activities.


• Minimum preparedness actions, not specific to a scenario.

• Early warning monitoring. Monitor the developments in order to create a scenario.

• The response planning should be integrated in the response plan and should be according to

the standard operating procedures.

• Standard Operating Principles must be devised for the first 7 days after a crisis strikes.

• Countries with humanitarian coordination must adhere to all stages of the emergency

response preparedness model (ERP) (see slide 9 in ppt 06 in Annex for details).

• Country with no clusters/sectors in place but imminent threat: IASC Early Warning Early

Action or prioritization by Emergency Directors, Global Clusters support to country level

sector/cluster on MPAs, IA contingency response planning and agreement on SOPs.

• Risk prone country with no threat: sector/ cluster MPAs in place to ensure readiness to

respond to unforeseen events (rapid on-set natural disasters).

Cluster lead agencies have a role to advance response. Even if the cluster is not in the country, lead

agencies should practice preparedness and the GWC can support the efforts.

Investing in the development of national and local capacities for emergency preparedness:

• The common framework for capacity development for preparedness is a coordinated and

coherent approach to strengthen national capacities for emergency preparedness.

- It is part of a wider DRM approach

- Promotes and supports government leadership

- Requires both humanitarian and development expertise

- CD plan based on assessments of risk and capacity

- Integration into national, UN and agency plans

- Supported by humanitarian, development and climate change adaption funding.

• What the common framework (CF) means for IASC agencies and clusters

- Agree to follow Gov. leadership

- Collaborate on joint risk and capacity assessments

- Participate in and adopt a joint plan for capacity development

- Bring their comparative advantage to the joint effort

- Split the contributions into humanitarian and development departments.

• Partners are investing in the development of capacities however it lacks coordination and

only the most coordinated efforts will receive the best results.

The participants took part in a group work exercise in which groups were asked to assess the

challenges and possibilities for future programs in readiness of the system, capacity building and

response in 3 different countries.

Summary of answers from the group work:

• Guinea

- The challenges are that at a global and regional level the platform might be

identified but they wouldn’t know how or who to contact.

- Prompting bias is another challenge

- Actively working through RECA to find out what structures such as contingency

plans and local capacity might be put in place

- Needs capacity, advocacy and contingency plans

- Could contact donors to find out what kind of funding is available

• Haiti

- The government is leading the cluster

- The challenges are identifying the role of the global cluster


- The cluster is not needed by government request

- Funding is running out.

- There is a need for strengthening the readiness of the sector

• Bangladesh

- Joint capacity mapping of who does what

- Vulnerabilities and risks

- Joint needs assessment and bring the resident coordinator into the process

- Advocate for donors for a more strong approach

- Global cluster: Actively support sectorial coordination mechanism in non-

emergencies

- If there isn’t an emergency: develop tools to facilitate capacity mapping and

contingency planning.

Response from the facilitator:

- Lots of emphasis on strengthening readiness and not enough on assessments

- There is a role for the GWC even when there is not an activated emergency

- There is also lots of work to be done with donors, advocating donors to invest in

preparedness

- There is a role for a coordination specialist in the humanitarian system, not in active

implementation but in advocacy, facilitation, network etc.

Annex

• 06 Presentation WASH cluster.pptx

Session 07 Mid-term Review of the Strategic plan – Frank Bouvet

Summary

• CAST has produced a second draft of the strategic plan which was discussed

• The 5 outcomes remain unchanged

• 2 additional outputs:

- Mutual accountability: accountability and internal transparency. This will be

achieved by the commitment of CAST to provide progress reports which are

already underway. A code of conduct has also been produced which describes

the obligations of the partners at a global and national level.

- Gender: The commitment has been made to include gender markers in national

WASH cluster operations at 2a or 2b levels. The output needs a strategy and

broad approach, there are many cross cutting issues related to protection and

the strategy is under the umbrella of accountability to the affected population.

(Oxfam has expressed interest in working on both gender and accountability)

There is a need to confirm the partner’s responsibilities for the new outputs.

• Review of the monitoring indicators:

- The indicators need to be as easy as possible to measure however there is a

need for synthetic and meaningful quarterly progress reports

- Everyone needs to be involved in mainstreaming the Gen CAP project into

projects.

- Measurement of progress with regard to the Gen CAP every 6 months (the CAP

review).


Annex

• 07 GWC17-MTR.pptx

Day 2

Session 08 Syria WASH sector update - Begna Edo & Pierre Fourcassie 17-19

Summary

Access is extremely constrained:

• Any work requires planning far in advance and ability to cope with last minute uncertainties

• The number of days in the field is limited and movements are strictly controlled by the

authorities.

• The projects end up being very supply oriented and there weak control of transparency and

distribution.

• Most governorates are under active conflict therefore travel is extremely limited,

communication lines are often down and whole areas can be cut off for months.

• Due to the difficulty in gaining registration with the government many NGOs are not present

or are awaiting registration. (e.g. Save the children and Oxfam)

• Partner support on the ground is extremely limited.

• The assessment coverage is very low at 10% and data collection and access to IDPS is very

limited.

Coordination mechanisms:

1. Focus on IDPs and most affected groups: Bi-weekly sector coordination meetings with

MoLA, SIF, SARC, UNDP, ICRC amongst others. Focusing on access to drinking water,

distribution of essential kits and hygiene promotion.

2. Focus on water supply issues, nationwide: Weekly meeting on infrastructure with MoWR,

ICRC, UNICEF and SARC. Focusing on generators, motors, submersible pumps, treatment

chemicals, water tanks, RO membranes etc.

3. Focus on WASH diseases and surveillance and continued planning: Inter-sectorial (WASH &

health) meeting. The priorities are disease surveillance, early detection, response and

increasing response capacity.

Current progress:

• Over 1 million people have been served with water, sanitation and hygiene kits. More than

5m served with chlorinated water.

• Have regular supplies of sodium hypochlorite, submersible dosing pumps, generators and

accessories.

• Over 20 generators have been installed for Idlib, Deir-Ezzour, HOMS, Aleppo, Rural

Damascus and Hama.

Future plans:

• Advocate through OCHA for access and boost assessment coverage

• Create a sector wide infrastructure plan for each governorate and work with MOWR, SARC,

MOLA and IPs to continue rehabilitation of infrastructure and supplies.

• Continue fund raising and advocating for cross line mission to the worst affected

governorates.

Teleconference:

List of participants:


- Pierre Fourcassie (Jordan Regional)

- Jean Christophe Barbiche (Jordan RRT)

- Robin Lloyd (ECHO, Amman)

- Unidentified group, Turkey

- David Bikaba (Sudan)

- Oliver Siejyadji

- Richard Luff

- Brian Reed (WEDC)

- Freddie Matchambe (CAR)

Summary Jordan:

• Currently 450000 refugees and around one third are in camps. The largest of the camps

is Zaatari which is full and they are therefore working on a second camp Azrak. The

remaining refugees are living in abandoned buildings, apartments or villages.

• The number of refugees is expected to rise to 1 million by the end of the year.

• The camp is led by UNHCR and the clusters have not been activated however there is

agreement that UNICEF is leading the WASH coordination and most WASH funding is

from UNICEF. There are plans to hand over to UNHCR by the end of the year.

• At the camp level there is strong coordination however at the national level the

coordination is weak as it is difficult to reach communities. Opposition from the

Jordanian community has been felt keenly and it Is becoming a very sensitive issue.

• The needs of the Syrian refugees are high and difficult to fulfill. The second phase of the

response (100 million USD) is insufficient to provide according to the national standards.

• The strengths are that there are many international partners, good technical capacity

from working with ACTED, Mercy Corps as well as skilled local contractors of which

there are many.

Annex

• 08 Syria WASH sector update May 4th

, 2013-pf.pptx

Session 09 Syria conflict Lebanon and Jordan ICRC – Philipe Dross

Summary

Main strategy: to support and link with authorities as well as to work at a high infrastructure level

as there is very little coping mechanism in the region.

At the start it was difficult to gain access however now there is good collaboration with the

government and access is easier. Some areas/ populations remain unreachable. SARC are a major

collaborator and the collaboration works well.

Challenges:

• There have been some technical issues to do with water trucking however all equipment

can be found in Syria and the technical skills are good for specific jobs. SARC also have the

capacity to implement WASH strategies. Contractors from around the country can also have


a significant impact.

• Hygiene promotion is needed and it is proving difficult to achieve, SARC are succeeding to

some extent however there is a need for more skilled HP staff in Syria.

• Basic sanitation, waste removal, pumping of waste water starts to become a problem. The

big challenge is to manage waste treatment in Alepo (the Government, Kurdish and

opposition forces have the city split so some treatments work and others don’t).

• Securing the water supply: power, chemical supplies, emergency repairs and to be able to

adapt the system are all done in conjunction with the ministry of water resources. They

continue to be neutral throughout the country and are willing to help and coordinate,

however they have a severe lack of means and access.

Budget:

• 80% of the budget is going to Syria and this will continue to increase if security allows

expatriates on the ground. There are a good number of capable local NGOs and engineers

however feedback and assessments are very limited so risks are being taken in the

outsourcing to them.

Lebanon:

• There are sufficient agencies to meet the needs however it has proven difficult to support

water infrastructures that were deficient before the conflict now that areas have double or

triple their original populations.

• There are 1 to 2 ICRC staff members working at village level with the authorities in the north

in order to ease tensions between local populations and refugees.

Turkey:

• No access and very little information

Jordan :

• The ICRC have had a presence for one year at a crossing point from Syria to Jordan, there

are many military deserters and with them come many protection issues.

• Azrak camp: Was intended to be a transit camp used 20 years ago and now there will be an

estimated 1 million by the end of the year. This raises grave considerations as the camp is

located in the desert with no large capacity water supply and inhospitable temperatures.

There is a question as to the overall WASH capacity and there is a need to be coherent and

realistic in the expectations from Jordanian authorities.

• Coordination between organisations is acceptable in terms of implementation and ‘who

does what’ however more coordination at the decision making stages is needed.

• HR capacity: There is a high distribution of motivated SARC volunteers however they are

strong on delivery but not on reporting.

• There is a strong need for technical/expatriate support in Syria. Skilled people are present

however they lack experience in crisis situations. Support from international organisations

as well as technical experienced staff are needed. The ICRC have identified where the

technical staff must be placed and urge all other NGOs to do the same.


Session 10 Teleconference and General Syria Region Discussion

Summary Southern Turkey

Paul Shanahan: cross line and cross border operations

• The Syrian government does not permit the UN to provide assistance to insurgents not to

conduct cross border operations. The UN is required to respect that prohibition. However

other humanitarian agencies are less constrained and are operating in Turkey and Syria.

• Feedback from people working in the field:

- Agency 1: There needs to be more actors coming in who are able to mobilize

resources. Coordination deficiencies are a major weakness in operations. Even in

lager agencies, policy and senior people are sent but there is a strong need for

WASH people in coordination.

- The UN is continually re-evaluating its position and remains of the view that

significantly more people are being reached through government sanctioned

operations than cross border.

If there is a need for coordination on site, we can provide support IMO (remotely) through

the WASH cluster.

- Some of the donors have positioned themselves to provide support and

coordination.

- The overall message is that this support is needed badly.

Jean McCluskey: Turkey assessment

• Coordination: There is an active NGO coordination in place, OCHA is present but not able to

support coordination and response. The gap lies when there are good intentions to

coordinate but not the capacity to do it.

• There has been no answer to the demand for technical coordination and support for the

WASH group.

• There is a large northern Syria assessment survey showing the number of people in need to

increase. This comes out in 2 weeks.

Jordan:

Concerns

• Need diesel for the transportation of chlorine and the function of pumps and generators.

ICRC say that this isn’t a current concern as the municipality manage the supply diesel to run

generators.

• A large concern is the infiltration of grey water from camps into Amman’s aquifers. There

has been an assessment which states that the grey water will not have an impact on the

aquifers however the issue is still under discussion.

• UNICEF are advocating the construction of a waste water treatment plant to reduce

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and grey water however this is in the discussion stages

and has yet to be validated by the government. Questions as to whether donors will

continue to fund such high cost interventions are also arising.

• Sustainability is a further concern as these measures are short term only.

Other types of assistance/activities:

• Pierre: Cash and vouchers have been used. In Lebanon ICS (Water supply and vouchers)

have been used.


• Jordan: Non-food items and shelter have been provided with possibilities of some Oxfam

cash assistance in the future.

• The complexity of the situation is such that they are switching from being opportunity

takers to a combined assessment and response operation but generally small operations.

• Risk is involved in moving expensive generators. There is concern about delivering these

generators as well as the amount of fuel that must be used in the delivery and running of

them.

• Overall, there is a strong need for more international actors and investment in local capacity

enhancement.

What else can be done to strengthen coordination?

• Robert Fraser: Is there an agency to facilitate RRT deployment, or an alternative informal

agency level support to the situation?

• Paul Shanahan: There is significant risk and this must be balanced. Information support is

available but deployments are best facilitated partner to partner without using the cluster.

The GWC does matchmaking but cannot provide direct mobilization.

• UNHCR are recruiting a WASH officer in Turkey who may be able to support coordination.

• Frank: Concern that increasing technical staff in Syria will create more needs in coordination

and a mess in response. There is a suggestion to support agencies that already have the

confidence of the government and SARC (ICRC?).

Syria:

• INGOs are working through national NGOs

• Paul has a meeting on the 28-29t may with the ministry in order to rationalize some of the

issues but at the moment the ministry seem quite neutral.

• IFRC: The numbers of partners in Syria is quite small but they are working well. In Damascus

it is a high risk area and from one day to the next the IFRC might have to leave for political

reasons. More actors are needed on the ground in case some have to pull out.

• Mercy corps: Perhaps there ought to be a consideration of staff secondment from NGO to

NGO if this does happen.


Session 11 UNHCR and cluster working arrangements on the ground –Dominique

Poteaud UNHCR 2

Summary

The differences between WASH in cluster (UNICEF) and UNHCR WASH program:

• The WASH cluster is only activated under specific conditions, mainly when the government

lacks capacity or a neutral forum is required. Whereas refugee situations are the

responsibility of UNHCR and they are able to delegate leadership of some sectors when

resources- either financial or human- are low.

• A common misconception is that UNICEF leads the WASH cluster and therefore they are

also in charge of refugee response.

• A common misconception about UNHCR is that they operate WASH only in camps and do

not work with host communities.

Overall objective:

To Strive to maximize technical and management synergies, availability of resources and response

capacities for the refugees and affected host populations.

UNHCR are already using some of the tools of the cluster and are looking at the more practical uses

of the resources of the cluster. GWC and UNHCR need joint advocacy of WASH key issues. UNICEF

and UNHCR need a coordination arrangement which involves some LoUs to formalise and clarify

roles and responsibilities.

Discussion about coordination between organisations: - Dominique, Paul, Frank, Sulliman, Drew,

Medair, IFRC.

Paul: The MoU between UNICEF and UNHCR is difficult to change, an informal agreement must be

made in specific situations.

• UNHCR

• UNICEF

- 50 staff members and 75 million USD

- Cater for refugee only contexts

- Long term commitments and a

strategic approach

- Have a long term response capacity

with long term fund raising strategy

and partnerships

- Rarely have a WASH officer at the

capital

- Standards and indicators do not refer

to Sphere but to UNHCR

- 630 staff members and 146 million USD

annually

- Cater for IDPs, natural disasters,

conflicts, urban & development

contexts

- Emergency oriented and time bound

commitment

- Have a time bound response capacity.

- Have a presence in most of the capitals

and some times in the field

- Core areas are not always flexible to be

adapted for refugees

outskirts/settlements


Drew: The coordination should be put under UNHCR, and if UNICEF recruits a full time coordinator

for Jordan, the person should be placed in UNHCR.

Drew: The coordination is complicated due to :

• Differing Mandates

• Sensitivity (What others perceive as their responsibility)

• Politics (decisions made at field level)

• Lack of capacity

• Management (Different planning cycles)

UNICEF needs to avoid being the only supply provider and there needs to be more transparency on

funding.

An issue as to who does long term implementation, further than 17 years?

MedAir: Examples from South Sudan: Strong leadership is missing from UNHCR. The issues the

partners are raising are technical, monitoring, coordination and supplies not being available. These

are hard to get from UNHCR. The partners are not interesting in the issues around the cluster

working with UNCR, they just want strong coordination.

Franck: In order to improve the immediate situation, UNICEF, GWC and UNHCR need to sit down and

discuss basic coordination.

Standards for water in Jordan :

• The government must be involved in water rationing and a meeting with the prime minister

is on the agenda.

• The demand from the field is for clear commitment from UNHCR to give room for WASH and

for a WASH coordinator to be facilitated by UNHCR.

There is a strong need for a meeting of minds on what good coordination practices are.

Annexes

• 11 GWC_Collaboration with UNHRC_draft2.ppt


Session 12 Information management update –Frank Bouvert

Summary

• Aims

- Understand the current needs on IM support

- Harmonise existing initiatives with past and new ones

- Develop an IM approach for national WASH humanitarian coordination platforms

- Provide the GWC a methodology to support national WASH humanitarian

coordination platforms.

• Methodology

- Surveys and interviews were used to assess the Global WASH IM tools, national IM

systems and nationally developed WASH IM tools.

- All active NWCs and some WASH sectors where asked to provide their experiences,

needs and suggestions.

- There was specific emphasis placed on 13 countries in order to ensure a wide range

of contexts.

- (Refer to the Analytical framework (ppt 12) in the Annex for further information on

methodology).

• Key findings

- 130 people provided feedback

- The IM toolkit :

1. Poor dissemination and follow up.

2. Deficient guidelines

3. Dysfunctional databases

4. Complexity of the tools

5. Lack of capacity

6. Scarce support by the GWC

- Countries are characterized by different IM environments and have high variations

in tool quality and features.

- The IM preparedness was found to be weak and one or two IM tools are used to

support all types of analysis.

- There was found a weak capacity to produce graphs, tables and maps, the use of

paper forms/ excel spreadsheets and limited use of modern technologies.

- There was a great variation in the partner’s engagement; the information generated

was often useless for partners.

- Overall a low IM capacity.

• Expectations of IM tools:

- Simple, easily adaptable tools.

- A pragmatic approach to helping WCCs make decisions

- Usefulness to partners, increased clarity on IM functions and standards and more

modern technologies.

- The experiences and tools must be shared among countries.

- The main needs are in Human resources, IM training and financial resources.

• IM Phases:

1. IM system design and development

2. Data collection and processing

3. Analysis and information dissemination

4. Evidence-based decision making and reporting.


• IM framework:

- Outline how the cluster should carry out IM and define cluster IM purpose,

approaches and components.

- Demystify the key concepts and terminology.

- Define clearly the roles and responsibilities

- Ensure coherence with IASC assessment and monitoring frameworks and HPC.

The notes on guidance will be shared however more resources are needed to be able to develop

capable IM tools.

An advocacy leaflet to support the IM framework and approach is to be produced however

resources and considerable support are needed.

Annex

• 12 GWC17- IM.pptx

Session

13

Support to national WASH coordination platforms – Paul

Shanahan

Nairobi action planning exercise:

Set the objective What actions are needed to meet the objective Human and financial

resources required? Who is responsible for delivery? Implementation of plan.

Needs identification from Nairobi:

• More access to IM tools

• Lateral (peer-to-peer) communication and sharing of experience

• Regular inter-cluster meetings

• Roadmap of vulnerabilities and hazards for all sectors

• Continued skills development of:

- WCCs, counterparts and partners

- Wide understanding and engagement

- Need for upfront investment

- Better understanding and awareness of existing coordination platforms and

practices

• Standardised training packages to sub-national level

• Clarity with respect to engagement and participation

• Clarify roles between national and sub-national levels

• Capacity assessment for coordination

• Framework of NGO and Government priorities

• Training

- Peer to peer

- National to National

- Language based

• Sense of Community among WCCs

• Wider and more frequent engagement from national and global levels

• Greater presence of global partners interacting at national level (CAST and SAG and global


advisors of partners)

• Relay engagement of commitment to global partner country offices

• Transition plan to an agreed long term coordination platform or structure

A Bottom up validation of the list of needs in required and it needs to be refined and prioritised.

Next GWC meeting:

• Location options include : Philippines, Indonesia or Haiti

• Indonesia was chosen and there are on-going discussions between partners regarding Visas,

permits, language, budget, logistics, effects on region etc.

Annex

• 13 D2 Support to National Coordination.pptx

Session 14 Consolidated appeals process - Kit Dyer

Summary:

• Over the last 15 years 15-20 countries have participated in the Consolidated Appeals

Process (CAP).

• The process aims to:

- Avoid duplication & overlap

- Avoid gaps

- Reduce competitiveness

• The current reality is that the CAP produces a disproportionally low proportion of funding

relative to the effort required to develop annual appeals and mid-term reviews.

• An example of this is the Kenya national office where 76.5 million USD came from outside

the CAP and only 5.9million USD from within the process.

• Kit requested that the GWC use its influence at a global level to support changes to the

system that will make better use of coordination resources in the field.

Role of the CCs:

• Organise needs assessments and analyse the results

• Formulate the cluster (sector?) response plan

• Project selection

• Prioritising selected projects or activities

• Advocacy

• Monitoring

• Revision

• Evaluation

• Relationship to Govt.

Annex

• 14 CAP.pptx

• 14A CAP_2012_Guidelines.pdf

• 14B Role of cluster coordinators in the CAP FINAL.pdf


Session 15 Knowledge management system – Toby Gould

Objective:

To improve the knowledge of the WASH coordination platform partners to help them achieve more

efficient WASH responses in emergency situations.

Specific objectives:

• Develop a participatory knowledge management system that effectively captures lessons

learnt and increases access to reliable technical knowledge

• Promote greater horizontal accountability and experience sharing amongst Global WASH

Cluster partners

Requires a multi-year strategy

Phase 1:

• 2013

develop preliminary knowledge management system

• 2014

1. Hygiene Promotion

2. Coordination Practices

3. Information Management

4. Emergency WASH in Urban Contexts

• By 2015

Develop finalized knowledge management system

Phase 2:

• 2016

Implement knowledge management system within the Global WASH cluster

Phase 3:

• 2017

Evaluate possible lessons learnt with other clusters and possible synergies/inter-cluster

model development

Working principles of the preliminary KM system:

• Priority stakeholders:

1. In-country WASH coordination platform and partners,

2. GWC field support Team

3. Broader GWC partners and other WASH actors.

• KMS will rely on sharing. The use of a fully dedicated website, which can be quality

controlled and tested information with an active link for Q&A and links to a social platform.

• The KMS’s primary objective is to review and validate existing data and information.

• To promote and support the establishment of nationally and regionally based knowledge

management approaches prior to emergencies, commencing with high risk countries.

For a more in detail plan of the KMS please refer to ppt 15 in the Annex.

Who will drive the KMS? :

The Steering Group will have a full time position dedicated to launching and trial activities during

Phase 1. WASH Partners and CAST are expected to contribute during this phase, but the bulk of the

work will be done by the group. As the project evolves, however, the balance will shift. With the

system in place and some of the activities and platforms for communication operational, the aim is

for partners themselves to move it along through their small (but important) contributions. As such,


the involvement of the group will gradually decrease and it is envisaged that it will eventually only

maintain a part-time role to support the basic elements of this strategy.

When is this starting? :

It has already started, consultancy and getting partners to engage has been the first step of the

process.

Annex

• 15 Knowledge Management System (GWC Meeting). pptx

Annexes

See GWC Web-Site at

http://www.washcluster.info/gwc/

Documents

17 th GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER MEETING Centre Oecumenique 150 ...washcluster.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/06/17th-GWC-mtg... · 17 th GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER MEETING Centre Oecumenique