REPORT ONANNUAL GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER MEETING (10Th - 11Th APRIL) BERLIN, GERMANY

REPORT ONANNUAL GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER MEETING (10th - 11th APRIL) BERLIN, GERMANY

INTORDUCTION

FHI360 under the Integrated Humanitarian Assistance for Northern Nigeria (IHANN) project funded by Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been implementing Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) component of the Project across three Local Government Areas of Borno State, Nigeria. FHI360 was selected as WASH Sub Sector lead in Dikwa and NgalaLGAs under the leadership of Mr. Henry Omara, FHI 360 was nominated by Nigeria WASH Cluster to represent Nigeria in the Annual Global WASH Cluster meeting in Berlin, Germany from 10 – 11 April 2018. This meeting was to offer a great opportunity for visibility, networking and sharing of Nigerian WASH experiences with other emergency coordination platforms around the world (Yemen, Bangladesh-Cox Bazar, DRC, Syria, etc.). As a representative of the Nigeria cluster, Mr. Omara shared the recent Nigerian experiences in a presentation on cholera response and good model of decentralized coordination mechanisms experiences.

2018 THEMES FOR THE MEETING:

Localization of WASH Humanitarian Aid
Humanitarian WASH Accountability & QualityAssurance
Evidence of WASH in Emergency

PURPOSE/AGENDA OF THE MEETING:

Getting updates from the Global WASH Cluster Strategy on:Action points during Annual Global WASH Cluster Meeting 2017 Kathmandu, Presentation on perception survey and funding, Update of achievements on the 4-strategic pillars of the GWC strategy: Mid Term Review and Presentation of Brussels Meeting.
Update from the Technical Working Groups (TWiGs) on:Cash and Market, Assessment, WASH and Operational Research.
Aim at localization of WASH Humanitarian Aidwith presentation on localization project lead, child protection AoR and UNICEF. Panel discussion on localization of WASH Humanitarian Aid and Group discussion on Strengthening capacity of local partner, Access and Monitoring, Humanitarian/Development and Coordination of local stakeholders.
Getting updates of the National Cluster/Sector coordinators with presentation on perception survey from coordination platform and presentation on the on-going challenges and success on specific countries (Myanmar / Yemen / South Sudan)
Getting Humanitarian updates: Achievements, Challenges and Actions with Country presentations in group discussion onNatural disasters: Drought (Ethiopia / Somalia / Kenya), Conflict: Myanmar / Bangladesh / Nigeria / South Sudan and Public Health Emergencies: Cholera & Hep E: Yemen / Chad / Nigeria.
To look at Humanitarian WASH Accountability and Quality Assurance with presentation from Franck Bouvet, (Deputy Global WASH Cluster Coordinator) and Intervention from the Country Cluster Coordinator, INGOs, donors and follow up with group discussion on Accountability to Affected Population, Monitoring framework, Technical guidance and Inter-sectorial coordination
To look at evidence of the impact of WASH in Emergency for response and coordination: with presentation from Tufts University, panel discussion chaired by Melissa (OFDA), Group work and plenary restitution.

TARGET GROUPS PRESENT DURING THE MEETING:

Participants:136 people
Countries:32 Countries
Organizations:66 Organizations (4 UN Agencies, 3 Red Cross, 35 INGOs, 2 NNGOs, 8 Government Ministries, 7 Academic & Research, 5 Donor, 2 Private Sector)
Members: (33 GWC Full Members, 6 GWC Associate Members, 5 GWC Observers)
Coordination Platforms: (14 Regional, National & Sub-National WASH Coordination Platforms)
Government Ministries:7 Government Ministries (Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW), Ministry of Public Works Liberia, National Water Sanitation and Hygiene Secretariat Liberia, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Board of Relief & Humanitarian Affairs – Iraq, DSS/Dutch Government, Ministry of Water Irrigation and Electricity of Ethiopia).
Donors: 5 Donors (GIZ, ECHO - European Commission, USAID/OFDA, DfID, SDC/HA)
Academic & Research: 7 Academic and Research Institutions (Tufts University, ELRHA - Enhancing Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance, EAWAG - Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, InstituteBio force, University of Surrey, The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Humanitarian & Conflict Response Institute / University of Manchester).

FACILITATORS:

The lead facilitator was ThiloPanzerbieter (Chair of the German WASH Network, Executive Director German Toilet Organization) together with Dominique Porteaud (Global WASH Cluster Coordinator, UNICEF) and Franck Bouvet, (Deputy Global WASH Cluster Coordinator, UNICEF).

Other facilitators during Group work/discussion on day one and two were: Frederic Beal, Nick Brooks, Syed Yasir Ahmad, Kevin Andrezejewski, Marielle Snel, Kit Dyer, Gregor von Medeazza.

KEY TOPIC COVERED AND KEY AREAS OF DISCUSSION:

Global WASH Cluster Strategic Plan 2016 – 2020 which are: Operational Support, Capacity Building, Advocacy and Knowledge Management

Objectives of GWC Strategic Plan 2016 – 2020 are:

a)Provide operational support to national and sub-national humanitarian WASH coordination platforms to meet the TA 6+1 core functions

b)WASH stakeholders have the capacity to coordinate and deliver the response

c)Influence and advocate for an effective humanitarian WASH coordination response and funding

d)Provide to the Humanitarian WASH actors a timely access to appropriate and accurate knowledge on coordination and response

Key achievements & main constraints

Operational Support - Key achievements are:

Deployment in 17 countries in 2017

Increased commitment of UNICEF as CLA

Set-up and Launch of the Global WASH Cluster Helpdesk

New Guidance Documents

Intercluster initiatives with Health and Nutrition clusters

Initiatives around Technical Working Groups

Cluster Coordination Tool Kit

Operational Support – Main constraints are:

Medium and long-term sustainability and flexibility of the FST Model

Synergies among Divisions and Offices within UNICEF

Level of preparedness of National WASH coordination platforms

Operationalization of coordination

Focus on quality of WASH response

Articulation of Guidance documents

Capacity Building - Key achievements are:

Learning and Training Strategy 2017-2020 with the training pathways on upskilling of incoming staff, core training and expert training on 11 priority projects.

Initiatives on coordination (Inter sector and cross cutting) such as market, disease control, Epidemic and quality assurance.

Capacity Building – Main constraints are:

Financial and human resources

Absorption capacity of institutional partners

Advocacy - Key achievements are:

Organized Brussels meeting which looked at: Overview of the water and sanitation sector, current capacities, strengths and weaknesses, highlighted challenges faced by the humanitarian WASH sector and actionable recommendations for the humanitarian WASH sector.

Organized Global events such as: World Water Week, UNC and SWA.

Organized yearly analysis of the WASH Sector Funding by looking at overall funding situation of humanitarian WASH responses and key facts on WASH operational responses in emergency priority countries.

Raising challenges in Countries such as Yemen and DRC.

Advocacy – Main constraints are:

No dedicated and specialized capacity

Compartmentalization within UNICEF

Low capacity of National WASH humanitarian coordination platforms

Knowledge Management - Key achievements

Community of Practice around WASH Coordination (Helpdesk).

Humanitarian WASH Research such as: Prioritization workshop organized by the Elrha and the R2HC and TWiG on Operational Research set up to support the implementation of the recommendations.

Joint initiative with Tufts University in coordination with OFDA on management of knowledge on the outcomes and impacts of WASH in emergency responses and generation of specific knowledge on coordination outcomes and impacts.

Knowledge Management – Main constraint

Lack of dedicated resources

Summary of main challenges & priorities

Resources vs expectations

Humanitarian WASH capacity

Commitment of partners

Momentum on coordination

Summary of main priorities

Governance

Mid-term review of the GWC SP (Consolidation of initiatives (Operational support, Quality assurance framework, Intersectoral initiatives and Knowledge management).

Commitments of WASH Grand Bargain

Resource mobilization

Outcome of Brussels Emergency WASH Meeting (Why is WASH in emergency constantly under founded?)

Generally, in emergencies WASH only receives a very small proportion of the funding of the total. In 2015, an estimated 88% of official humanitarian assistance went to medium- and long-term recipients facing recurrent or protracted crises – this trend is continuing.

As so many crises are protracted Emergency Directors should therefore:

Help the WASH Sector and agencies engage with the World bank and other long-term funders

Support joint agency communication strategies to highlight the need for more funding in WASH.

Humanitarian response in restricted environments

In complex emergencies and geopolitical crises, the increased risk aversion and perception of increasing insecurity has led to less actors becoming operationally active leaving gaps in coverage for the affected populations. Considering this, Emergency Directors can help other agencies get directly involved by;

Directly collaborating with other agencies to assist them entering the country with initiatives such as sharing security guidelines, sharing offices etc.

Asking other agencies if they can get involved or scale up their activities such as UNICEF did at the start of the Cholera outbreak in Yemen.

WASH Quality & capacity building

Standards for implementing humanitarian WASH programmes are improving, but a focus on quantity has masked inadequacies in quality. To help improve quality at the field level Emergency Directors could:

Support the greater inclusion of WASH in the new Humanitarian Academy initiative

Promote greater transparency within and across agencies on WASH quality issues by documenting and publishing programme experiences and failures

Support a WASH professional development model whereby the cluster would clearly articulate and keep updating the knowledge required for each grade and individuals themselves would be responsible for ensuring they are upgraded.

Preparedness

There is a chronic lack of funding for in country WASH preparedness. emergency directors can help this agenda by;

Making the case within their own organisations, interagency and donor meetings for the economic savings made by good preparedness in disaster prone countries.

Pushing for more involvement between the WASH response and the local water utilities/ government bodies.

Next steps

Send the results of the meeting to the relevant emergency directors

Get their feedback on the major asks - understand their point of view & how they can assist WASH cluster on specific needs

Make an action plan – advocacy

Localization of Humanitarian WASH aid through Coordination and Implementation

There was a Grand Bargain in an agreement between more than 50 of thebiggest donors and aid providers which were as below:

Greater transparency

More support and funding tools for local and national responders

Increase the use and coordination of cash-based programming

Reduce duplication and management costs with periodic functional reviews

Improve joint and impartial needs assessments

A participation revolution: include people receiving aid in making the decisions which affect their lives

Increase collaborative humanitarian multi-year planning and funding

Reduce the earmarking of donor contributions

Harmonize and simplify reporting requirements

Enhance engagement between humanitarian and development actors

NOTE: “as local as possible, as international as necessary.”

Localization in Coordination is through:

a)Governance & Decision Making: refers to the degree to which local and international actors are in leadership roles and are taking the strategic decisions on behalf of the members. This includes:

Leads and co-leads
Members of Strategic Advisory Groups and other decision-making forums

Globally, leadership positions at national level tend to be held by international actors and/or government. The leadership tends to be more mixed at sub-national levels, but often this is related to funding and access, rather than capacity.There are many ways in which a transition to local leadership/co-leadership could be supported. Strategies include coaching and mentoring, shadowing, co-implementation etc.

If engaging a Cluster in this discussion, possible questions for the coordination group could include:

Is it necessary for international agencies to be leading/co-leading the group? It is possible for local actors to do it?
If it isn’t, what support do we need to provide to the local partners to prepare them for the coordination role?
Does the Cluster have a transparent policy/strategy that outlines how and when leadership can be transferred to local actors?
Are local actors sufficiently represented in the Cluster’s committees/decision making forums?

b)Influence and Participation: Influence and Participation refers to the extent to which local and international actors are both participating in the cluster; and the extent to which they are able to influence decisions.

To do this, they need equitable access to information, so that they can make informed contributions – and to do this they need data and it needs to be presented in a way that they can use it (e.g. local actors may need translations, different modalities of communication for those who cannot attend meetings or access email etc).

If engaging a Cluster in this discussion, possible questions for the coordination group could include:

Does the membership reflect the reality of the response? Are there actors who are involved in humanitarian response that are not represented in the cluster (e.g. private sector, diaspora, academia, women’s groups etc
Compare the membership graph and the leadership graphs. What does that tell us?
Do all members have the same skills and opportunities to influence discussions?
Are there ways in which the cluster could help members to be more active – for example, changes to the way information is circulated, the way meetings are run etc?

c)Partnerships: The nature and quality of these partnerships are important, because the quality of the humanitarian response will only be optimal if partners share a common expectation, commitments and a mutual sense of accountability. We are not advocating for Coordinators to get involved in individual agreements – this is ultimately a matter for the Cluster members themselves – but there are things that the Cluster can do:

Ensure that all members are aware of the Principles of Partnership and their respective responsibilities
Monitor the overall approaches, trends and implications of partnerships within their cluster and ensure that these are consistent with the humanitarian response priorities
Advocate for the use of the most effective types of partnership and ensure that this is also reflected in HRPs, project sheets and funding criteria.

In general, partnerships which include coaching and mentoring, or joint implementation approaches are likely to be more successful when the purpose of the partnership is to transfer skills and knowledge and strengthen capacity. It seems that most of partnerships at present, tend to focus on the transfer of money, and the transfer of risk and as a result, international contributions are often focused on design and monitoring. Where capacity building is a priority, this is often delivered through one off, centralised training – and whilst this might be relevant in some circumstances, it is not likely to lead to sustainable change in contexts where there is high staff turnover, or where more day to day problem solving support is needed.

The other major challenge in the humanitarian sector, is the short term, project based nature of partnerships. Whilst this is often related to short term funding cycles, partnership approaches that include long term, strategic commitments to work together (even when there is no budget for project implementation) are more likely to lead to greater trust, more collaborative approaches and more sustainable capacity strengthening. Clusters should continue to advocate for and support these types of partnerships.

If engaging a Cluster in this discussion, possible questions for the coordination group could include:

What do the graphs tell us about the different perceptions that national and international actors have about their partnerships?
How might this negatively or positively affect the quality of the projects/programmes?
Which types of partnerships have members found to be most effective in our context?

d)Funding: refers to the type of funding that the sector has access to; and the way in which it is distributed to the members.

The Grand Bargain commits to a target of 25% of all funding being given as directly as possible to local actors by 2020. A definitions paper, prepared by the Global Localisation Workstream defines direct as: funding which is passed from a donor straight to a local organization; or funding from an aid agency which is mobilized directly from private donors and passed straight to a local organization.

What constitutes “as directly as possible” remains open to interpretation, as it will depend on the context (access, partner capacity etc).

Coordinators can play a role in ensuring the local actors who have sufficient capacity are prioritised in the HRP and have approved project sheets; and ensure that pooled funding selection criteria enables local actors to access this funding. Coordinators can also advocate for approved local partners when discussing with donors.

However, it is not just the amount of funding that goes to national NGOs that matters, but also the quality of that funding. Very few national actors receive unearmarked or flexible overheads budget lines. But they need this for the same reason that international actors do – seed funding for new initiatives, to sustain operations between partnerships and to be resilient to unexpected financial shocks. National partners also need long term and predictable funding, to be able to grow and sustain their operations. Whilst the nature and quality of funding is not usually in the Coordinators’ control, Coordinators can use their influence to advocate and prioritise partnerships that offer this type of funding.

If engaging a Cluster in this discussion, possible questions for the coordination group could include:

Who receives a majority of the funding for our sector? How does this match with who is delivering most of the services?
If international actors are receiving a majority of the funding, is this necessary? And if it is necessary, what is needed to enable local actors to be ready and able to absorb more funding?
What other funding is available in our sector that is not being captured by FTS or other cluster data collection mechanisms? How can we better capture this information?

e)Institutional Capacity: refers to the extent to which national and international actors have the institutional systems and capacities to grow and sustain their operations.