Concept note for Phase 2 of the Global Nutrition Cluster (GNC)- ENN Knowledge Management Project

Introduction

The GNC’s core purpose is to enable country coordination mechanisms to support timely, quality, and appropriate nutrition response to emergencies. A governance review of the GNC in June 2013 noted the absence of a system for the identification, compilation and dissemination of learning from country cluster response. Consequently, Knowledge Management (KM) wasincluded as a key component of the GNC Strategic Plan (2014-2016) and supporting Work Plan (2014-2015).

As a first step towards more systematic KM, ENN has supported the GNC to document six country learning focused case studies in 2015. Five case studies were shared at the GNC Annual meeting in October 2015 and discussions at the meeting confirmed the value of the process and the importance of continuing to develop a systematic approach to KM within the GNC.

The recently released Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) further articulate the importance of integrating learning into humanitarian response[1]. ENN is well placed to continue to support GNC-KM due to its 20 + years experience in KM within the sector, but also its growing KM role within the SUN movement. Over the next 5 years with DFID funding, ENN will design and implement KM activities to support the SUN movement with a focus on fragile and conflict affected states (FCAS).

This concept note reviews key points of learning from the ENN-GNC KM work in 2015 and proposes several activities to deepen understanding of issues identified as well as test how best to integrate KM more systematically into GNC and country cluster processes to continue to support effective learning on nutrition coordination in 2016 and beyond.

Process, outputs and findings of GNC-ENN KM project (2015)

Process

After a scoping exercise to identify interested countries and themes, ENN worked with country teams in six countries (Bangladesh, Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, and Ukraine) to document learning around nutrition coordination.

The process in each country was different as it was largely dependent on capacity as well as time available in-country for documentation. In some countries, ENN conducted interviews with staff via Skype and then wrote the case study with reviews and comments by key stakeholders (Yemen, Ukraine). In other countries, Nutrition Cluster Coordinators(NCCs) drafted case studies and worked with their Nutrition Cluster Strategic Advisory Groups to develop the learning while ENN provided overall editorial support (Bangladesh, Somalia). Other countries developed rough drafts and ENN provided feedback and support during several iterations of document development (S Sudan, Philippines). The GNC Coordinator provided significant support for several countries in terms of advocating with cluster staff and country offices for continued commitment and engagement in the process and by commenting on case study drafts.

In general, although included as a small part of their job description, there is marginal time for NCCs to reflect, document and capitalize on experiences and learning.

Outputs

The outputs of Phase 1 are six country case studies. A summary of each will be published in Field Exchange 52 (expected publication date April 2016).

Key findings

As presented at the Annual GNC meeting, some of the key findings and questions that this learning process has raised during are outlined below:

  1. Terminology- definition of a ‘Nutrition Cluster’ varies across countries.
  2. As a sector we seem to have a default response in emergencies: treatment of GAM, IYCF and focus on children under 5. There are questions about how the Nutrition Cluster can best support the assessment and targeting of other vulnerable groups and promote an understanding of the need to assess and address other forms of malnutrition in various contexts.
  3. Integration of SAM and MAM programming andreporting is limited. How can the cluster best support partners to address this issue and what are the advocacy/influencing routes to a greater continuum of care for the wasted child?
  4. Integration of nutrition across sectors is challenging in all contexts and particularly so in crises. How can nutrition be better represented in other cluster efforts in order to contribute to better nutrition outcomes through targeting of nutrition sensitive activities such as cash and food transfers and health programming?
  5. Engagement in preparedness and longer-term coordination mechanisms is variable and there are questions as to ‘how’ to do this.
  6. There is limited technical capacity across partners to develop a comprehensive nutrition response in various contexts (Ukraine, Philippines).
  7. There have been large gaps in coordination capacity in several countries (national and sub-national level) resulting in decreased coordination and lack of clarity on the role of the CLA in the absence of coordination staff. At the same time, in settings where partner technical capacity is weak, NCCs can spend significant time supporting the technical side of programmes (Bangladesh) instead of coordination. Experience from Somalia and S Sudan demonstrates that having significant human resources for nutrition programming and information management allows staff to focus on coordination (Somalia, S Sudan).
  8. In situations where a stand-alone Nutrition Cluster is not warranted or activated, how can nutrition coordination best be leveraged?

Through discussion of the above points at the 2015 GNC Annual meeting, there was agreementto continue to institutionalise learning at the country cluster level. Eleven priority areas for documentation of learning highlighted included:

  1. Situational analysis and response planning when GAM is low
  2. Assessment and nutrition programming for other populations (adults and PLWs)
  3. How to effectively link MAM and SAM management
  4. Nutrition sensitive cash programming
  5. How to respond to a non-breastfed population- experiences with breast-milk substitutes
  6. Experiences of integrating nutrition into other sectors (FS, health and WASH)
  7. Transition planning and process with the MoH
  8. Preparedness and systems building
  9. Impact of coordination on improving emergency response
  10. How NC adapt to long-term chronic emergency
  11. Nutrition in urban areas

As mentioned above, NCCs and country cluster staff have limited time to dedicate to documenting their learning although the 2015 GNC meeting provided a valuable opportunity for face-to-face discussion with these staff which moved the draft case studies forward with greater depth and learning.

Proposed activities for a Phase 2

Three objectives are proposed for Phase 2 of the ENN-GNC KM collaboration described below along with the main activities:

Objective 1: To build on learning from phase 1 by developing learning documents on priority thematic areas

Activity 1.1Documenting learning around priority thematic areas(identified at the GNC Annual meeting). While phase 1 focused on country-specific learning exercises, phase 2 will attempt to focus on thematic learning exercises with engagement from a wider range of countries and contexts.

  • Output: fourthematic papers featuring experiences of several countries on themes identified in the GNC annual meeting. Summaries of each to be included in ENN’s Field Exchange.
  • Process
  • Scoping phase: themes and countries to be identified
  • Implementation: ENN to provide a framework and remote support to country teams to document experiences around thematic areas
  • Face-to-face meeting with at least three countries to further discuss and identify learning
  • Learning shared at GNC Annual meeting 2016
  • Thematic documents finalized, circulated and posted on GNC website
  • Summaries written for ENN’s Field Exchange

Objective 2: To identify key existing processes and mechanism within which processes to facilitate the documentation of learning can be integrated

Activity 2.1 Documentation of real time learning from a country or region. Early humanitarian response decisions set the tone for the response. The development of country case studies in phase 1 found it difficult to capture this critical period. Phase 2 will identify if/how the GNC could embed KM in the response by including KM capacity in the initial response staff/team.

  • Output:One real-time case study documenting the process and challenges of integrating learning into an emergency response. A summary of the case study to be featured in ENN’s Field Exchange.
  • Process:(to be further discussed and articulated)
  • If a country is declared an L2 or L3, ENN willprovide an individual who can support cluster set up (operations etc.) along with KM for a short period of time with follow-up remote support and potential further KM support visits. The idea is not to over-burden the work of the cluster staff involved in the initial response but to provide additional staff to support the cluster response with a key focus on KM.
  • Case study to be developed by cluster team, summary to be written for Field Exchange.

Activity 2.2Identify if/how the CCPM process can be utilized as a mechanism for longer-term knowledge capture

  • Output:A set of questions and process articulated for how best to extract learning from country teams during the CCPM process
  • Process:
  • Conduct key informant interviews (including OCHA and other global clusters) to identify if/how KM can be institutionalized in the CCPM process
  • Develop questions and process for integrating KM session/questions into a CCPM
  • Pilot in 1-2 countries and refine process/tools based on this

Activity 2.3Identify if/how regular monthly NCC calls (and other routine GNC-CT activities- please advise) can be used to identify, track and share learning

  • Output:Report documenting if/how routine communication activities of the GNC-CT can be leveraged to support the identification, tracking and sharing of learning.
  • Process:
  • Conduct key informant interviews with GNC-CT and country cluster staff
  • Engage in several monthly calls (and other routine GNC-CT activities)
  • If opportunities arise, use these to promote the thematic case studies and document the process and outcomes

Activity 2.4 Canvass global and country partners (including UNICEF, members of the GNC-SAG and members of country SAGs) to identify other mechanisms and processes that could potentially be leveraged to contribute to learning

Output:Summary of partner thoughts and suggestions

Process:Key informant interviews, analysis of potential mechanisms with GNC-CT, if potentially feasible mechanisms identified, pilot these and document results

Activity 2.5Establish a separate theme on ENN’s en-net for coordination related issues, accessible exclusively to cluster staff for accessing support on coordination and information management related issues

  • Outputs:
  • En-net forum on coordination created with identified moderators
  • Regular summary of discussions developed and shared with users (via email) as well as GNC (via website and/or opt in email circulation) (also interesting issues could potentially could be summarised and shared in Field Exchange)
  • Process:
  • ENN to expand IT capacity of current en-net
  • Identification of moderators
  • Pilot the new en-net theme (coordination), revise if necessary and then launch

Activity 2.6 Develop web-based seminars to share learning documented by countries (from Activities 1.1 and 1.2)

  • Outputs:2 webinars arranged where countries share learning with other countries
  • Process:
  • Thematic learning documented (as part of activity 1.1 and 1.2) and powerpoint presentations developed
  • Webinars set up to share presentation with interested cluster partners at global and country levels.
  • Presentations to be made available to all via GNC and ENN websites

Objective 3: To document global recommendations and country level guidance for institutionalizing learning and building capacity of partners and government on KM

  • Outputs: Global guidance for the GNC-CT on how to institutionalize learning and country level guidance on how to build capacity of partners and government on KM
  • Process:
  • Outputs from all activities in the projectto be reviewed and analysed
  • Draft global and country guidance to be developed and presented to GNC-CT, country cluster staff and partners for input
  • Guidance to be revised accordingly

Budget

Item No / Description / Cost GBP / Cost $
1.1 / Documenting learning around priority thematic areas (identified at the GNC Annual meeting). / Technical input for 4 thematic case studies: Consultant - 12 d per case study, three six day trips x £350 = £23,100: Technical Director 3d per case study & three six day trips @ £322 = £4,518. / £32,782 / $50,811
Learning shared at GNC annual meeting; 5d consultant @ £350 = £1,750; 5d Director @322 = £1,614 / £3,364 / $5,214
Summaries written for FEX: 8 days @ £350 = £2,800 / £2,800 / $4,340
Travel costs: three, six day field trips to Africa/Asia for Consultant & 1 Director; one, five day trip to GNC Annual meeting for Consultant + 1 Director = flights/accommodation/per diems / £20,740 / $32,147
2.1 / Documentation of real time learning from a country or region. / Consultant: 14d in-country; 5d remote support; 5d additional visit/support; 5d report writing all @ £350 = £10,150: 5d Technical Director oversight @ £322 = £1,614 / £11,764 / $18,234
Travel costs: two field trips to Africa/Asia for Consultant; 1 x 5d, 1 x 14d; flights/accommodation/per diems / £6,960 / $10,788
2.2 / Identify if/how the CCPM process can be utilized as a mechanism for longer-term knowledge capture / Key informant interviews 10 days; develop questions 2 days; pilot in 1 country- 5 days; report writing 2 days= 19 days for Consultant @ £350. Technical Director oversight of 4 days at £322 / £7,941 / $12,309
One 7 day trip to either Africa or Asia / £2,880 / $4,464
2.3 / Identify if/how regular monthly NCC calls (and other routine GNC-CT activities) can be used to identify, track and share learning / Key informant interviews (5 days), monthly calls (4 days), meetings with GNC-CT (3 days)= 12 days for Consultant @ £350. Technical Director oversight of 1 day at £322 / £4,523 / $7,011
2.4 / Canvass global and country partners (including UNICEF, members of the GNC-SAG and members of country SAGs) to identify other mechanisms and processes that could potentially be leveraged to contribute to learning / Key informant interviews (7 days), analysis (3 days) for Consultant @ £350. Technical Director oversight of 3 days at £322 / £4,468 / $6,925
2.5 / Establish a separate theme on ENN’s en-net for coordination related issues, accessible exclusively to cluster staff for accessing support on coordination and information management related issues / Cost for one thematic area per year (set up incl ENN) / £2,650 / $4,108
Contribution to core en-net costs for 1 year / £640 / $992
2.6 / Develop web-based seminars to share learning documented by countries (from Activities 1.1 and 1.2) / 1 day develop ppts, 6 days support webinars, 1 day document results/interest for Consultant @ £350. Technical Director oversight of 2 days at £322 / £3,445 / $5,340
3 / To document global recommendations and country level guidance for institutionalizing learning and building capacity of partners and government on KM / Develop draft global and national guidance- 6 days, present at GNC meeting (time already costed in activity 1.1) for feedback, incorporate feedback – 2 days for Consultant @ £350; Technical Director oversight of 2 days at £322 / £3,445 / $5,340
3 / Management & Coordination costs / £30,446 / $47,191
4 / Office equipment and communications (stationary, office space, phone communication, etc.) / £1,015 / $1,573
5 / Audit / $0
Total project related costs / £139,862 / $216,786
Indirect Programme costs (7% of project cost) / £9,306 / $14,425
Total Costs / £149,169 / $231,211

1

[1]Commitment 7 of the CHS states ‘Humanitarian actors continually learn and improve’.