AAP/PSEA Task Team Meeting Notes – March 31, 2014
AAP/PSEA Task Team meeting note – 31 March 2014
New Task Team Co-Chair - Introduction of John Abuya:
Brian Lander (TT co-chair) introduced John Abuya of Action Aid, as the incoming cochair of the Task Team. John briefly described his background; he is the acting head
of the international humanitarian action and resilience team within Action Aid, and
with 25 years of experience including as Country Director for many country
programmes brings a wealth of experience to the task team.
Update from ALNAP conference:
Due to connection problems, Alexandra Warner was unable to dial in, and initially
Rosie Oglesby (Action Aid) provided an update, followed by Paul Knox-Clarke
(ALNAP). After an inspirational introduction from Robert Chambers, a well-attended
meeting took place over 11-12 March with over a 100 humanitarian organisations
including, CBOs, civil society representatives, various UN agencies, national and
international NGOSs, Red Cross & Crescent Movement representatives as well as
members of think tanks.
A clear outcome from the meeting was a realisation that we need a much deeper
understanding of social dynamics and contexts in the varying situations in which we
operate. While there is plenty of will for deeper engagement with communities,
there are challenges, and most of these challenges are real and not excuses. There
are tensions between international actors and states when engaging, and a variety
of new technologies being used to engage. A greater evidence base for the ‘how’ of
community engagement is required.
A wide variety of opinions were presented at the meeting, with no intention to come
out with a declaration or an agreed action plan for the entire humanitarian system.
However all panels were recorded, and will be available in June or July compiled into
a meeting report. Much material is already on the ALNAP webpage, with more being
posted as it is prepared, and the Task Team will be notified when the final report is
available.
Action Point:
1. ALNAP to share final meeting report, and Task Team co-chairs/coordinator to
disseminate.
AAP and PSEA in C.A.R update:
David Loquercio (Inter-Agency AAP/PSEA Coordinator) provided a brief description
of his experiences in C.A.R, including some reflections on the recent Operational
Peer Review (OPR) process. Firstly, the L3 context is very different to the Philippines,
being a conflict as opposed to a natural disaster. There are serious gaps in funding
and staffing that remain a serious challenge to operations; with only 20% of funding
received it is impossible to cover all the needs. AAP awareness is generally low, both
at an inter-agency and agency level.
The role of the AAP Coordinator is very useful as it puts AAP on the map. The initial
AAP action plan was not shared widely, and the country team was not consulted
1
AAP/PSEA Task Team Meeting Notes – March 31, 2014
when drafting the plan, and so little follow-up had taken place. The plan has now
been revised and contextualised by David, and will soon be endorsed by the HCT,
providing greater legitimacy. There is improved senior level management
commitment to AAP. Clusters have been supported on AAP in a variety of ways,
including developing a communications plan on return conditions with the CCCM
cluster. A C.A.R specific PSEA Code of Conduct has been developed and issued.
Discussing accountability during on-going L3 crises is not the most effective way of
encouraging AAP. AAP needs to be a preparedness issue, and needs to be better
integrated in budgets, for instance there are no funds for post-distribution
monitoring. There is a need to think more about practical solutions as well as giving
more time to Communications with Communities. Decision making power remains
with large agencies that hold funds, but these decisions are not communicated to
affected populations. Smaller implementing organisations are expected to deliver
the often unwelcome news regarding operational planning. If the large agencies
were themselves facing the communities with these decisions they possibly wouldn’t
be made in the first place.
There is a lack of clarity within OCHA and others of the distinctions between CwC
and AAP. PSEA issues have been picked up but there remains a low degree of
awareness, and better systems need to be established. There are plans to replace
David when he finishes his mission (6 months post). There remains a lack of clarity
on who should take the lead on collective accountability.
C.A.R Operational Peer Review discussion.
Brian Lander mentioned that the OPR pointed at fundamental issues, we need to ask
what does accountability look like at a collective level? For the L3 declaration in
South Sudan neither the IASC Principals, nor the Emergency Directors Group asked
for an AAP Action Plan to be developed by the Task Team – evidence that the
process needs to be driven by the HCT. In South Sudan the Task Team has contacted
the HC to offer support, but as yet there is no reply.
There are a number of PSEA focal points in C.A.R, and we need to offer them
support. David highlighted that the PSEA working group was also a peer learning
group, and there is a need to link the working group to PSEA focal opijnts in the
respective agencies. Christine Bendel suggested that an online advisory support
team be established, with Yasna Uberoi and Luc Ferran leading. This was agreed.
Lucy Heaven asked that the PSEA Working Group list be shared with the Task Team.
Rosie Oglesby highlighted that in the Philippines there is still a lot of confusion at the
cluster level on the roles and responsibilities of the clusters - what are we expecting
the clusters to do around AAP? David provided an example from the food security
cluster. With the planting season coming up, David worked with them on
information sharing, feedback mechanisms and other topics. The greatest
shortcoming is a lack of information on living/security conditions in places of origin
for IDPs. There is some work being done by the CCCM cluster here, and a variety of
other projects including digital information sharing technologies.
2
AAP/PSEA Task Team Meeting Notes – March 31, 2014
The role of OCHA guiding the inter-cluster group to be accountable is still unclear – is
it a definite part of their function? Matthew Serventy pointed out that at a global
level clusters don’t have a common approach on AAP. Where PSEA is clearly an
agency responsibility, clusters have some AAP responsibility. Different clusters take
varying positions, some putting AAP responsibilities onto their individual members,
while others claim a collective responsibility. Despite this, when a discussion is had
with clusters that say they are accountable, it can become apparent that they still
believe only members are truly accountable, and not the collective. Barb Wigley
highlighted the potential role here for NGO cluster members to drive the
accountability agenda. Brian Lander suggested that the Task Team focus on a non L3
crisis and again look at a collective AAP approach and how to go about it in a more
‘preparedness’ phase.
April Pham (via email) asked if there were specific observations regarding how
gender was considered and addressed in the CAR emergency as per the OPR, if there
were interactions/synergies with the GenCap in country and if there are any specific
recommendations? David responded that he had not seen the second version, but in
the first there was nothing on Gender, which is definitely an issue. The AAP and
GenCap advisors were in touch, and in a review of projects by GenCap using the
gender marker only 2 were remotely compliant. The self-assessments of the OPR
showed AAP as weak and gender rated as ‘OK’. He also highlighted that as AAP and
gender are linked, poor accountability will inevitably mean poor consideration of
gender.
Action Points:
2. Yasna Uberoi and Luc Ferran to establish an online support group for the
PSEA working group in C.A.R. All interested please contact - uberoi@un.org
& Luc.Ferran@rescue.org
3. David Loquercio to share the PSEA Working Group list for C.A.R
World vision update on the DFID beneficiary Feedback Project:
Naomi Opiyo provided a briefing on the DFID feedback project running together with
World Visions UK, Frontline SMS, and INTRAC working together for almost 1 year
now operating in 7 countries, including; Kenya, Tanzania, Somaliland, Zimbabwe,
India, and Ethiopia. A key learning is that more time needs to be spent in the
programme design stage, particularly in context analysis. It is essential to understand
social and power dynamics, cultural structures and decision making processes. The
context analysis in six projects is already complete, and the feedback process is in
three levels. The projects will be starting in May, and the effectiveness of the
feedback mechanisms will be shared from then on. INTRAC is managing data and
ensuring value for money.
As many of the projects are focused on maternal health most beneficiaries are
women, who have their own preferences on how they want to give feedback. Issues
of confidentiality about sensitive complaints and fears around the feedback process
are important to address. There are literacy issues to take into account, and how to
involve men in the feedback process is also important to make sure it has been
agreed by all in the community.
3
AAP/PSEA Task Team Meeting Notes – March 31, 2014
Lucy Heaven asked for a description of the three different levels of feedback, and
asked that if the feedback mechanism is so contextual, how can we replicate the
learning in other environments? Naomi outlined the three levels;
a) Low resource approach – using mobile technology (Frontline SMS) through
unsolicited SMS feedback. This now also includes hotline calls due to literacy
and sensitivity issues.
b) Medium resource approach – introducing public information campaigns
about feedback mechanisms, implementing partners decide on questions to
ask, and beneficiaries decide on ‘how’ to feedback - report cards, reference
groups or adaptation of M&E tools, etc.
c) High resource approach – context analysis most important here, with a
higher level of choice of mechanisms, including setting indicators and
developing scorecards.
In terms of replicating learning, by comparing the seven projects some similarities
will become evident. Despite the varying contexts, the similar target groups,
partners and projects will likely provide some similar results.
Christine Bendel asked why do the mechanisms need to be explained to the men?
Naomi pointed out that men have become suspicious that the feedback may in fact
be about them. As it is a confidential system, no feedback will be revealed, but a
briefing on the system must be given to men, and it is important that men are
involved to an extent in wider programming.
UN Habitat presentation on AAP in Urban Areas
Szilard Fricksa provided a detailed briefing on how UN Habitat has been using a new
‘neighbourhood’ profiling model over the past years, but most recently in Syria to
establish the needs of urban communities from a multi-sector perspective. The
Presentation is attached to the minutes.
Szilard highlighted that the urban profiling could work in rural areas, however was
best suited to high population concentrations. Information is collected from
secondary sources and neighbourhood focus groups, and in the case of Syria,
damage and functionality maps are compared. It is clear that more support is
required for host families within and surrounding Syria, and the approach uses multisector trend indicators, rather than impact or delivery indicators. Trend analysis
shows that community needs change over time, from basic infrastructure such as
road repair to land tenure and community loans. The neighbourhood approach
allows a more in-depth analysis of a community’s needs, but can the system adapt
from a sectoral approach to a multi-sector neighbourhood one?
In response to a series of questions, Szilard indicated that; it would be possible to
develop a template of context analysis questions to better understand local power
contexts, communities would be able to set their own indicators to use as part of the
monitoring and social audit, the unit of measurement was the neighbourhood as
defined by the community, that partners are being sought to roll out the approach
more widely, but at the moment the Syria region remained the priority.
4
AAP/PSEA Task Team Meeting Notes – March 31, 2014
There is an opportunity to build an ‘accountability habit’ in the CBOs and civil society
involved in the approach, and we need to examine how to leverage information the
approach collects. As Syria is a middle income country, we must develop links to
existing capacity. The Task Team members are invited to engage with UN Habitat in
this work with a view to strengthening AAP in this approach.
Action Points:
4. Matthew to share presentation (annexed to minutes)
5. Szilard to forward relevant data and findings to the task team, and Task Team
members to engage with Szilard in supporting AAP in the approach.
Update on the PSEA Recruitment Report to the IASC Principals
Christine Bendel described how the Principals endorsed the whole report, agreeing
to the strengthening of recruitment processes. A PSEA team looking at new
measures came up with fourteen recommendations for UN agencies and six for
NGOs. Records of misconduct were raised, for example the convicted rapist who
took on a position with an NGO working with children in another country. There
must be an examination of what organisations can do to screen applicants in
recruiting?
While the Task Team is working on this, it is the responsibility of every individual
agency. Christine is soon leaving her position, and can no longer be the lead on this
issue. There should be a small team developed to investigate PSEA and recruitment,
with a new leader to replace Christine. Christine can provide a short statement
outlining what the scope of such a team would be.
Action Points:
6. Christine to prepare a short statement on potential HR/PSEA team scope.
7. Matthew to share the statement with Task Team.
8. Volunteer to lead in place of Christine required.
Updates on Work Plan Objectives:
At the last meeting it was decided that written updates on Task Team activities
would be provided by lead agencies, compiled by the Task Team Coordinator and
then shared with the Task Team generally. Thus far only Action Aid and OCHA
provided updates, and it was decided that other updates could be provided by Friday
April 4th for sharing next week.
Action Aid proposed a small virtual working group to work together at global level on
developing a generic community awareness/training module that can be
contextualised for country level pilots. Drawing on learning from C.A.R and the
Philippines and existing materials already available from individual agencies, as well
as HAP, Sphere, CDAC etc., the group could and adapt/ build on this to develop a
common framework. There is a possible pilot project to be initiated in the
Philippines. Action Aid offered to lead such a group, Andy Wheatley (via email)
offered to take part. David responded that he has developed some material in
5
AAP/PSEA Task Team Meeting Notes – March 31, 2014
French, and would be interested in such a group. People willing to contribute to this
group, should contact Rosie Ogelsby in Action Aid.
David Loquercio (via email) commented that the activities of the work plan have a
crucial role in reinforcing preparedness and the capacity of organisations to be
accountable individually and collectively at field level. In terms of pilots and field
support, HAP remains committed to being involved in planning and implementing
these. He will continue to support the C.A.R remotely and try to ensure we capitalise
on the experience there. Regarding Myanmar, HAP will be involved in a long-term
project with the 3MDG fund and there may be synergies to be found there and
further deployments are to be expected this year.
David also voiced concern regarding the note from OCHA on the development of the
resolution on AAP and that it should be rebranded aid effectiveness, a term that has
been turned into something so broad it is meant to include everything. He thinks we
need to take a more proactive approach in explaining what AAP means and why it is
a shared responsibility of humanitarian organisations and member states, which is
acknowledged already by most stakeholders under various names. If human rights
activists had taken the same approach, maybe there would not be a charter for
human rights so I think we need to advocate and explain until the message is
understood.
There was a brief discussion on the AAP and CwC paper planned by CDAC in relation
to the Action Aid mention of this in their update. Barb Wigley questioned the
process, and wondered about the mandate of the final paper. Angela Rouse
informed that the paper is still being worked on, and hopefully will be shared by the
end of the month. It is a research paper, twenty five people from different agencies
were interviewed looking at differences and similarities between AAP and CwC. It is
not a position paper, but a work of research.
Brian Lander informed that Patty McIlreavy has stepped down from her role as Task
Team sponsor in the Working Group. This has sparked a discussion within the
Working Group on the roles and responsibilities of Task Team sponsors, and has also
meant the WG will consider who should be the replacement sponsor. Brian also
informed that the WG is considering prioritising work plan activities to prepare for
the eventuality that the Emergency Directors or the WG may ask teams to include
new activities in their work plan. It is not clear what this will mean in practice, but
clearly dialogue with the Task Team will be essential.
Action Points:
9. All lead agencies to provide updates on their activities by Friday April 4 th.
(Compiled updates to be annexed to minutes)
10. Action Aid to establish a small virtual working group developing community
awareness and staff training modules. Anyone interested in taking part
should contact - Rosie.Oglesby@actionaid.org
6
AAP/PSEA Task Team Meeting Notes – March 31, 2014
Any Other Business:
CBCM update
Tristan Burnett provided an update on the CBCM pilot project. Proposal is with
ECHO, hopefully the last submission, with 1.1 million€ funding requested. UNHCR
has stepped down from the project. Specific sites have not been identified, but will
be based on needs assessment. Additional activities on psychosocial/medical/legal
care have been added, and further funding will be required for these. Haiti is no
longer part of the pilot. There has been insufficient time for agencies on the ground,
the fluid nature of the context, have meant there is no time to find a new site. There
is a plan to appeal for further funding beyond ECHO, assuming the ECHO funding
comes through, there is hoped to be a domino effect.
Philippines AAP Coordination staff
Philippines Inter-Agency AAP Coordination staff are required ASAP. A National AAP
Coordinator (6 months) and an International (3 months with the option to extend 3
months); both based out of Tacloban. TORs will be released by OCHA shortly.
People Centred XCI’s report
Siobhán Foran (IFRC), co-chair of the IASC Gender Reference Group (GRG) and
Delphine Brun, GenCap Adviser with the Global Clusters, met with the Chief of HCSS,
OCHA to discuss the proposed follow-up to Piero Calvi’s Strategic Review on the
Coordination and Funding of Cross-Cutting Issues and the representation of XCIs
within the GCCG. As a result of this meeting, the GRG called a meeting with
representatives of the AAP/PSEA Task Team, GenCap, HelpAge (on aging), Handicap
International (on disabilities), the Coordinator of the MHPSS Reference Group (from
War Trauma Foundation) and UNHCR (for HIV AIDS) to discuss a consolidated
response to the HCSS/GCCG on the Strategic Review. While agreeing a common
response would be useful, the suggested time frame (i.e. end of April) is too short.
The IASC GRG has contacted the HCSS to ask that the discussion on the Strategic
Review be postponed to the GCCG’s May meeting, GenCap and the Task Team will
work together on developing a framework of questions to be answered by all the
various people involved. The timeline and framework will be shared next week.
Action Points:
11. Coordinator to share timeline and framework by Monday 7th April.
12. All to respond according to interest to XCI report once framework and
timeline shared.
HAP conference - do complaints mechanisms work?
The conference is on 8 May, and is followed by a PSEA practitioner’s day on the 9 th.
All welcome, please contact – Karen Glisson - kglisson@hapinternational.org
AAP positions currently vacant
There is an AAP position currently vacant in FAO headquarters. There are also
positions about to be opened in CAR and the Philippines.
7
AAP/PSEA Task Team Meeting Notes – March 31, 2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Online or In person
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
In person
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
In person
Meeting Attendance
Name
David Loquercio
Rosie Ogelsby
Christine Bendel
John Abuya
Barb Wigley
Sara BELFRAGE
Luc BRANDT
Alexandra Warner
Christine Nichols
Paul Knox Clarke
Naomi Opiyo
Madara Hettiarachchi
Angela Rouse
Luc Ferran
Lilliana Zoldi
Sonia Rastogi
Sonja Pierings
Richard Cobb
Anita Bay
Siobhan Foran
Sophie Martin-Simpson
Manish Thomas
Karen Glisson
Ester Dross
Massimo Nicoletti
Brian Lander
Rebecca O’Kusky
Etienne Lacombe-Kishibe
Lucy Heaven Taylor
Szilard Fricksa
Isabelle Robinson
Tristan Burnett
Beris Gwynne
Matthew Serventy
Carl Hennung
Organisation
HAP
Action Aid
UNDP
Action Aid
WFP
WFP
UNCHR
ALNAP
Interaction
ALNAP
World Vision
World Vision
CDAC
Rescue International
IMC
WRC
UNFPA
Merlin
Save the Children
IFRC
Save the Children
ICVA
HAP
Independent
HAP
WFP
UNDP
World Vision
Independent
UN Habitat
UNHCR
IOM
World Vision
AAP/PSEA Task Team
WFP
8