National WASH Cluster / Sector
Coordinators Meeting
Report
IFRC Africa Zone Office
Nairobi, Kenya
13 October 2015
Table of Contents
Main acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................... 1
Executive summary ....................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction: workshop overview and agenda ........................................ 5
2. Session summaries and key issues ......................................................... 6
2.1. Preparedness ............................................................................................................... 6
Experiences from the field: country presentations ............................................................ 6
Feedback from Preparedness group sessions and action points ...................................... 9
Plenary: preparedness .................................................................................................... 11
2.2. Transition ................................................................................................................... 12
Experiences from the field: country presentations .......................................................... 12
Feedback from Transition group sessions and action points .......................................... 14
Plenary: transition ........................................................................................................... 16
2.3. GWC support to Country Platforms ......................................................................... 16
Existing tools and structures ........................................................................................... 16
Working group session: Where can the GWC provide support? ..................................... 18
Plenary ............................................................................................................................ 20
Skills development session: presentation skills ............................................................... 20
3. Conclusion and next steps ..................................................................... 21
Annex 1: List of participants ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Annex 2: Meeting agenda .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
0
Main acronyms and abbreviations
ARCS
ANDMA
BBR
BRC
ECHO
ETC
FST
GWC
GWCC
IM
IFRC
IMTK
IOM
M&E
NCA
ODK
OECD
OFDA
PDMC
PRRD
PMSEC
RAT
RECA
RRMP
RRT
SAG
SIWI
WASH
UNICEF
UNHCR
Afghan Red Crescent Society
Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority
Building Better Response
Burundi Red Cross
The Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department of the European
Commission
Emergency Telecommunications Cluster
Field Support Team
Global WASH Cluster
Global WASH Cluster Coordinator
Information management
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Information Management Toolkit
International Organisation for Migration
Monitoring and evaluation
Norwegian Church Aid
Open Data Kit
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance
Provincial Disaster Management Committee
Provincial Rural Rehabilitation and Development unit
Multi-sectoral Plan for the Elimination of Cholera
Rapid Assessment Tool
Regional Emergency Cluster Advisor
Rapid Response to Movements of Populations
Rapid Response Team
Strategic Advisory Group
Stockholm International Water Institute
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
United Nations Children’s Fund
United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees
1
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
Executive summary
The National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator meeting involved three working group
sessions: the first on preparedness, the second on transition, and the third exploring potential
avenues of Global Wash Cluster (GWC) support in a number of areas: preparedness and
contingency; response; transition and contingency. The following is an overview of the key
issues raised from each of these working groups, and from subsequent plenary sessions.
Key challenges and obstacles:
Preparedness:
The challenges cited for preparedness revolved around two main issues: the capacity and
clarity of coordination structures. One of the key coordination challenges stems from the influx
of humanitarian actors in emergency situations, which often overwhelm existing mechanisms
of coordination. It is difficult to advocate and receive funding for preparedness activities,
especially for ‘Non-attractive’ countries with cyclical emergencies or protracted emergencies
due to conflict. The group recommended a number potential ways for the GWC to mitigate
some of these challenges, including knowledge management: compiling contingency plans,
best practice and lessons learnt from other countries; advocating for earmarked funding for
countries less likely to attract funding; conducting context-specific capacity-building
initiatives; providing guidance on pre-disaster information requirements; and advising on the
incorporation of preparedness plans into overall sector development plans.
Transition:
It was clear from the day’s discussions that the WASH Cluster was more comfortable with
preparedness and response, and that there is plenty of room for improvement with the
transition process – which stems mainly from the fact deactivation of clusters seldom occurs
as intended. Some of the main challenges with the transition from a cluster-based to a more
sector-oriented approach include: improving human resources (HR) for information
management (IM) within government structures; maintaining IM systems once the transition
has taken place; a lack of confidence in government coordination structures in some contexts;
the weak capacity of emergency management committees; ensuring consistency at national
and sub-national levels; a lack of coordination structures within and between ministries; too
little emphasis on planning for transition and best practice on how to do it; and a lack of
guidance for deactivation.
Examples/ideas for ‘getting it right’:
Preparedness:
The working groups put forward a number of suggestions to tackle some of the challenges
mentioned above, including: the clarification of roles and responsibilities, as well as
communication channels, in contingency plans; pre-establishing relationships and
contractual agreements with suppliers from the private sector, including telecommunication
companies; ensuring ongoing surveillance to see risks before they arrive; multi-cluster
engagement to improve response; and incorporating disaster risk reduction and disaster
contingency plans in development planning. Cluster corepipelines with SoPs can also be
established as a minimum buffer for cluster supplies.
2
Transition:
Suggestions for the transition process included: a realistic incremental timeframe to ensure
the process is manageable; ensuring government (and development sector) buy-in;
embedding sustainable funding plans into government emergency response plans; setting
up a monitoring system to facilitate the implementation of a transparent and effective
transition; producing clear ToRs for coordination that demarcates roles and responsibilities
including throughout the transition process; carrying out government capacity mapping and
analysis; establishing a set timeframe for cluster activation to encourage governments to
periodically reassess the possibility of deactivation; setting up a humanitarian working group
composed of international actors and government representatives; multi-sector and
development linkages to maintain readiness for coordination for emergencies; and providing
a minimum checklist to know when transition planning can occur.
Technologies and tools that can assist in preparedness/transition:
Preparedness:
The participants recommended the extended use of both information technology (IT) tools
and institutional preparedness related tools. The IT tools included Ushahidi, Sahana, GIS
and the Open Data Kit (ODK) – praised for its simplicity and replicability in diverse contexts.
The importance of Early Warning System development was also highlighted, as a
metereological focus is crucial for preparedness as well as disease trends analysis
(epidemiological data). Some of the existing tools need to be improved, including examples
of the 4W which the participants felt is not always user friendly or responsive – particularly
for NGOs. Another recommendation involved the development of a platform for sharing
contingency plans. Of the institutional tools, treaties such as the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Reduction (2015-2030) were mentioned as good examples.
Transition:
The technologies and tools proposed for transition were less specific than those
recommended for preparedness, though the group still made a number of suggestions: in
terms of IM: HR, financial resources and the availability of software need to be considered.
With regard to HR, the commitment of both the government and the donors is vital; otherwise
the transition process would not be valid. The government also has to be involved from the
outset, and existing databases and IM tools should be taken into account. The capacity of
governments to manage information flows could also be improved, and the transition process
should be made clear: including the definition of roles and responsibilities.
Where can the GWC provide support?
Preparedness and contingency:
 Deployment of GWC technical staff on either a longer-term basis (i.e. 2 months), or for a
much shorter period to facilitate a workshop or produce a contingency plan/review existing
documents, capacity analysis/development. Provide remote support by disseminating and
providing an effective platform for sharing guidelines/templates that already exist but
country offices may not be aware of;
3
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
 Sustain communication streams after deployment;
 Leverage for more funding;
 Tailor some of the existing tools to specific needs: the best tools are those that are
developed in-country together with GWC technical support.
Response:
 Provision of a surge IM/Cluster Coordinator – in support to existing platforms, crucial that
there is a requirement for post surge staffing (exit strategy) to be led by the country office
and supported by the GWC;
 Revision of the technical helpdesk; real-time support and advice to national platforms.
 Advocacy on funding and donor flexibility;
 Organise regional IM training to supplement WASH Cluster Coordinator training.
Transition:
 Simplify IM tools;
 Provide guidance throughout the transition process, which could be in the form of a
framework/checklist for transition – or at least guidance on how to start and sustain the
process;
 Conduct capacity building initiatives, and share examples of successful transition (best
practice).
Next steps
All of the day’s presentations, and a number of tools requested for sharing, can be found on
Dropbox using the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3nrfr2z53tjsmwp/AAClCuJafYl5Lh_BRTXC5RlCa?dl=0
Other useful resources mentioned throughout the day are available via the following links:




The IM Toolkit: http://washcluster.net/im-toolkitpage/
The Indicator Registry:
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/applications/ir/indicators/global-clusters/11
Building Better Response (BBR): http://www.buildingabetterresponse.org/
The Cluster Coordinator Handbook: http://washcluster.net/wpcontent/uploads/sites/5/2014/04/WASH-Cluster-Coordinator-Handbook.pdf
The GWC will send round a SurveyMonkey for input into next year’s training/workshop, and
outputs from the discussions with the consultant for the strategic plan development will also
be shared. Overall, the first National WASH Cluster and Sector Coordinator Meeting was
considered to be a success, and really emphasised the need to repeat and expand on the
event in the future. National WASH Cluster and Sector Coordinators should also be aware
that they can contact the GWC at any time for guidance and support.
4
1. Introduction: workshop overview and agenda
The GWC is an open platform for humanitarian water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) actors,
with a primary purpose of delivering coordinated water, sanitation and hygiene promotion
assistance to emergency-affected populations. It aims to strengthen humanitarian response
and improve technical capacity to respond to humanitarian emergencies by ensuring
predictable leadership and accountability within the WASH sector. The GWC was formed in
2006, building on the success of an existing WASH humanitarian sector working group. The
forum now consists of 32 full members, comprising international organisations, United
Nations agencies and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), with UNICEF
as its lead agency. It also relies on the support of civil contingency/response agencies,
academic institutions and donors.
Since it was formed, the GWC has held annual meetings with its partners to share
experiences and lessons, and to assess progress in the achievement of set strategic
objectives for the WASH sector. This year, the GWC held its 21st annual meeting from the
14th to the 15th of October at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC) Africa Zone offices in Nairobi. As a precursor to the event, the GWC held a
National WASH Cluster and Sector Coordinator meeting on the 13th at the same venue. This
initial meeting provided a forum for discussion for both National WASH Cluster and Sector
Coordinators (including co-leads and government counterparts) who were brought together
for the first time. It was also the first time that the GWC annual meeting dedicated an entire
day to national coordination. Key issues raised would feed into discussions at the subsequent
annual meeting, and would facilitate the design of the 2016-2020 WASH Cluster Strategy.
The National WASH Cluster and Sector Coordinator meeting revolved around two main
themes: preparedness and transition. One of the GWC’s key aims is to strengthen the
preparedness and technical capacity of country platforms to respond to humanitarian
emergencies, and the forum provided an opportunity for national-level actors to advise the
GWC how best to provide such support. The second key theme – transition – reflects the
existing challenge of moving away from a cluster approach to one that is more sectororiented. Clusters exist to fill a gap of coordination during emergencies, and are intended to
phase out once this gap has been filled. As it stands, however, there is no practical criteria
for this process, and clusters often exceed the expected timeframe of transition to
government structures. The session on transition highlighted this as a key issue within the
sector, and as with preparedness, offered an opportunity for national-level actors to suggest
how this could be supported at a global level.
The sessions on preparedness and transition were each informed by experiences from the
field – by country presentations underlining key challenges and best practice related to one
of the two themes. The short presentations were followed by panel discussions and working
group sessions. Each group was facilitated by a Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) member,
and discussed one of the following three topics:
(1) Key challenges/obstacles;
(2) Examples/ideas for ‘getting it right’;
(3) Technologies and tools that can assist in preparedness/transition.
5
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
The working groups then provided feedback and action points in the subsequent plenary
session, with an emphasis on recommendations for GWC support to country platforms. This
theme was maintained for the afternoon sessions, which involved a plenary discussion on
existing GWC projects and tools, an update on the situation with the Field Support Team
(FST), and a presentation on the Information Management Toolkit (IMTK) and Assessments.
The final breakout session explored what is required of the GWC in terms of: preparedness
and contingency; response; and transition and contingency. Feedback from the groups
preceded a short skills development presentation designed to reinforce essential
competencies for cluster coordinators.
The above agenda was informed, in part, by a survey conducted earlier in the year to gauge
participant preferences for the structure and key issues addressed in the meeting. This report
documents these proceedings, and the main points raised from the day’s discussions.
2. Session summaries and key issues
2.1. Preparedness
Experiences from the field: country presentations
Nepal
Presenters: Rajit Ojha, Department of
Water Supply and Sewerage, WASH
Cluster Lead from the government side;
and Arinita Maskey Shrestha, UNICEF
Nepal, WASH Cluster Co-Lead.
Humanitarian context and structure of
coordination:
The 2015 earthquake affected
approximately 4 million people in Nepal,
spread over 31 districts. As well as
outlining the current humanitarian context,
the presentation analysed the country’s
level of preparedness for such an
eventuality.
A
Disaster
Response
Framework was in place, endorsed by
Nepal’s Ministry of Home Affairs, which provided a means of coordination across all sectors.
A District Preparedness and Response Plan was also in place, which had been prepared by
District Officers. A WASH Cluster Contingency Plan, reviewed in 2014, focused on a variety
of disaster scenarios: including the possibility of an earthquake in Kathmandu and landslides
in other districts. The plan estimated that an earthquake in the country’s capital could severely
affect and displace up to 1.8 million people – far short of the 4 million affected by the
earthquake earlier in the year. The contingency plan also clearly outlined roles and
responsibilities for such an emergency. The WASH Cluster capacity was estimated to be
6
limited to about 60,000 households based on the existing in country capacity (pre-quake).
The cluster was activated in 2008, and is still active. Regular WASH Cluster meetings are
held, usually every three to four months prior to the earthquake.
Challenges:





Lack of preparedness funds from the government and donor agencies. Both are reluctant
to provide funding before a disaster as results are uncertain. However, recognition of the
importance of risk reduction has increased since the earthquake;
There is a lack of risk-based planning within regular government programmes, both at
central and local level;
There are a lot of documents linked to WASH-related activities, but not enough linkages
preparedness. This was influenced in part by the lack of major disasters in the years
leading up to the 2015 earthquake;
Government information management systems need to be improved.
The contingency plan did not account for the more than 100 additional WASH
organisations that would come to Nepal.
Way forward:






A Sector Development Plan (SDP) is being drafted, which will look at existing disaster risk
response mechanisms and vulnerability mapping;
Human resource development is a priority, particularly on information management, urban
WASH, assessment and monitoring capacities;
Initiation of preparation of a sector financing strategy where preparedness and response
fund mechanisms will be part of the strategy;
A total sanitation guideline is in the process of development, and work is underway to
ensure every household had its own toilet, though the earthquake was a setback (most
districts were declared or close to being ODF). Both preparedness and resilience should
form part of the total sanitation guideline;
The government requires a better fund-flow mechanism for disasters.
The new National Disaster Act is in process of endorsement from Government that will address
the preparedness and response mechanism based on the past learnings
Main questions arising/comments:
 What level is the private sector involved in contingency and preparedness? Did you have
signed agreements with the private sector?
Response: A number of households to be provided with kits had already been determined.
Some companies had stocks ready to deliver, but the scale of the damage from the
earthquake meant that we had to go to the regional level for additional stocks. This took
more time than needed which was also added with failed access from India for supply
routes, causing delays.
 What would you have done differently had you known the magnitude of the earthquake?
Response: District committees exist but they are not sufficiently equipped in terms of
WASH and disaster management. Vulnerability and risk mapping would have helped.
Information management is also crucial. The government had begun to develop a better
information management system after the 2014 floods, but by the time the earthquake
7
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
struck it was too late. So the focus for the immediate future will be on improving the
existing information management capacity.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Presenter: Florien Bisimwa, WASH Cluster Information Manager and Deputy Coordinator
(UNICEF).
Humanitarian context and structure of coordination:
Just under one and a half million people are displaced in the DRC, 30 percent of whom are
living in what are known as ‘sites’, not camps – often located in cholera zones. Standard incountry cluster activation, with functioning HCT, HC and inter-cluster forum. UNICEF are the
WASH cluster lead agency, with an NGO Co-coordinator from Solidarites International. The
two key areas of response are displacement and cholera, and so far the focus has primarily
been on stopping the spread of cholera. Though the main cholera zones are concentrated in
eastern DRC, the disease is spreading west along the Congo River.
In terms of preparedness, and what has been done so far, PMSEC workshops have been
held in four endemic cholera provinces: Province Orientale, North Kivu, South Kivu and
Katanga. There is also a contingency plan for all Type A and Type B health zones; a map
documenting the spread of cholera; simulation contingency plans with local authorities in
sanctuary areas; the capacity of the volunteer Red Cross in the promotion of hygiene,
disinfection, chlorination and safe burial has been strengthened; online training has been
conducted on WASH and rapid assessment; and regular contingency stock mapping has
occurred at provincial and county levels. With regard to lessons learnt, the awareness of state
authorities in endemic areas has been a success, and the speed of RRMP is also a case for
pre-positioning funds and human resources.
Challenges:






The cash approach in WASH;
The ongoing crisis with internal displacement, reducing preparedness capacity;
The spread of cholera to new areas, such as Kindu;
A lack of government authority involvement and local partner capacity;
Expanding the cluster response to refugees;
Improving the local production of chlorine.
Burundi
Presenter: Remegie Nzeyimana (UNICEF, Burundi)
Humanitarian context and structure of coordination:
The recent general elections in Burundi have had big implications for the movement of the
country’s population. Burundians have relocated to Tanzania, Rwanda and the DRC. As was
highlighted by Florien Bisimwa, there are periodical cholera outbreaks along the
8
Burundi/DRC border. Burundi’s coordination mechanism involves a sector approach, led by
the Ministry of Energy and Mines, supported by UNICEF. There are not many agencies to
coordinate and/or willing to coordinate preparedness or response activities. In terms of
preparedness, a national contingency plan exists, which is updated twice a year. In addition,
we have a global contingency plan from the main implementing partner – the Burundi Red
Cross (BRC), which has also produced a contingency plan for elections.
Challenges:






The political situation is unstable, which makes access difficult;
The lack of capacity of response at the government level, in terms of information
management and information dissemination;
We have to push the national platform to invite all key actors to activate their contingency
plan;
There is no clear leadership within the Ministry of Energy and Mines, which is not as active
as required by the national contingency plan. Coordination is a big challenge;
There are too few actors in the WASH sector;
Investing support from the global level as there are many competing emergencies.
Main questions arising/comments:
 Coordination of preparedness, does this exist between the DRC and Burundi? What is
the coordination structure for the cholera outbreak?
Response: there are regular regional teleconferences between the DRC, Rwanda, Kenya,
Tanzania and Burundi, and we are in the process of planning cross border meetings. No
common contingency plan exists, but it can be a possibility in the future.
Feedback from Preparedness group sessions and action points
Group (1): Common challenges and obstacles in preparedness
Facilitator: Robert Fraser (IFRC)
Presenter: Simon Odong (WASH Cluster Coordinator, Sudan)



Weak government support/leadership and a lack of clarity in the overall structure of
coordination. The challenges revolved around two main issues: capacity and clarity of
coordination structures.
One of the key coordination challenges stems from the influx of humanitarian actors in
emergency situations, which often overwhelms existing mechanisms of coordination.
‘Non-attractive’ countries struggle to get funding.
Where the GWC can support:

Collecting information from different clusters, including contingency plans and lessons
learnt from other countries, and making them easily available on a web or exchange
platform.
9
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting




Support National platforms to advocate for earmarked funding for countries less likely to
attract funding.
Capacity building initiatives should be context-specific. This is a positive development in
Sudan, for example, where the GWC provides specific support in the development of an
information management framework, and is assisting with core pipeline systems. So the
GWC could also send in personnel to countries specifically to support preparedness
initiatives.
The GWC can provide guidance on pre-disaster information requirements – evidencebased programming, tools and frameworks. What information is needed to facilitate the
development of a preparedness plan?
Overall linkage with development: the GWC can advise on the incorporation of the
preparedness plan into a country’s overall sector development plan.
Group (2): Examples/ideas for ‘getting it right’ in preparedness
Facilitator and presenter: Murray Burt (UNHCR)







Those involved in preparedness are not always those involved in the response. A
considerable amount of time is spent on contingency planning, but these plans often get
thrown out the window. Agencies who have not been involved in the planning process
often arrive in emergency-affected countries and immediately start implementing –
undermining the value of the any existing contingency plan. Predicting resource
requirements in the event of an emergency, and predicting the details of potential
scenarios can be a waste of time as situations are inevitably different in emergencies.
Getting contingency plans right involves the clarification of roles and responsibilities, as
well as communication channels. The real value of the planning process lies in the
opportunity it creates for people to meet and discuss possible scenarios, roles and
responsibilities, standards – enhancing communication.
Key challenges are attracting funding and data collection, such as flood mapping and
compiling stockpile data (making it relevant and continuously updated).
Participants in the working group have had good experiences with LTA agreements,
framework agreements and agreements in place beforehand with suppliers.
Pre-established relationships with national platforms from the global level and use of
global resources such as standby partners’ are useful. So too are areas with a human
resource surge capacity (i.e. FST). Red Cross national societies are often first
responders, and form an example of a national organisation that can provide first
response support and good information.
On-going surveillance is crucial – seeing a risk before it arrives.
Multi-cluster engagement is very important – cholera response, for example, involves a
variety of clusters other than WASH.
Development planning should include a combination of disaster risk reduction and
disaster risk management contingency plans.
Group (3): Technology and tools that can assist in preparedness
Facilitator: Jean Lapegue (ACF)
10









Extended use of IM tools, such as Ushahidi, Sahana and GIS
The Open Data Kit (ODK) tool is also very useful. It is very simple to use, with tablets and
android systems, collecting real time data, and is also open source, so best practice can
be replicated in a variety of contexts. UNICEF partners in Jordan are currently using the
technology.
Early Warning System development is key, currently utilised in Palestine, Cambodia and
Jordan. A meteorological focus is important for preparedness.
The 4W Matrix is not always user friendly or responsive, particularly for NGOs, essential
that inputted data is analysed and fed back to the collective as useful information.
Others tools could be developed to help track displaced populations, somewhere where
ODK might be useful.
Floating stock: storing stock at a supplier’s base. Important to have pre-assigned
agreements with the private sector, including with contractors to supply equipment.
UNICEF Jordan, for example, has had problems with local contractors and is acquiring
equipment from Lebanon.
A platform for sharing contingency plans could be developed.
WASH often leads, but preparedness should be multi-sectorial.
A lot of focus so far has been on IM tools, but institutional tools are important too. Some
countries are using treaties such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 20152030 to structure their preparedness. We need to pinpoint challenges, and evaluate how
the GWC is supporting this process.
Plenary: preparedness
 Floating stock: Earmarking stock failed in Afghanistan due to market disruptions during
emergencies. Participants emphasised the benefit of having a clear MoU with suppliers,
and in Nepal multiple vendors were sourced for a single product, on a regional scale.
Primary, secondary and tertiary vendors were identified through a bidding process.
 GWC advocacy for countries that struggle to attract funding: At the global level it is
difficult to align the needs of individual countries, except if these are consistent across a
number of countries. But generally priorities are context-specific and each country should
approach donors based on their own needs, which the global level can also support. One
avenue to look into is the availability of a UNICEF regional preparedness funding scheme,
which Indonesia recently utilised to direct funds into WASH sector coordination in terms
of preparedness.
 Advocating for government preparedness: Preparedness depends on the type of
emergency – some of which only occur once every century, so it can be difficult to make
sure governments are prepared. Though it was impossible to predict the scale of the 2015
Nepal earthquake it was known that one was due, and social media played an important
role in disseminating information. Accurate data enhances the credibility of risk, so is also
an important element of preparedness.
 Contractual agreements with telecommunication companies: These help mitigate
communication blackouts during emergencies. Such an agreement forms part of the
contingency plan in the Philippines, for example, so that masts can be erected quickly
when these are destroyed during an emergency. Ideally, these agreements should form
11
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
an integral part of every country’s contingency plan, and the cluster could facilitate the
process. Though a cluster dedicated to communications exists (ETC), an inter-sectorial
approach is required.
 Avoiding duplication: Organisations flood into emergency-affected countries and often
ignore existing contingency plans. One of the main reasons why the cluster system was
created is to avoid such scenarios. The government can play a part by limiting involvement
to organisations that have registered in that particular country. Example of Nepal, where
the government stopped issuing temporary visas after the earthquake to ease the
congestion of humanitarian organisations.
 Government capacity building: Crucial for preparedness, and could be facilitated by
mandatory government training for WASH engineers and officers. Technical working
groups under the cluster have been very useful in this respect, and for managing people
coming in for specialised response. This reflects an interesting initiative in Indonesia,
where the government’s Disaster Risk Management Centre trains partners on disaster
risk management – which could be replicated.
2.2. Transition
Experiences from the field: country presentations
Afghanistan
Presenter: Betman Bhandari (Emergency Advisor and Co-lead WASH Cluster, DACAAR
Kabul, Afghanistan)
Humanitarian context and structure of coordination:
Afghanistan’s population is perpetually affected by natural disasters and conflict, which have
led to the cumulative internal displacement of over a million people. The WASH Cluster was
activated in the country in 2008, in response to a particularly harsh winter that claimed the
lives of 926 people (Lead by UNICEF, and Co-led by DACAAR and WHO). Around 50
national and international NGOs are working on WASH. In terms of the structure of
coordination, ex-Minister Wais Ahmad Barmak is the current National Emergency
Coordinator, working with the Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority
(ANDMA), Provincial Disaster Management Committees (PDMCs), Provincial Rural
Rehabilitation and Development units (PRRDs), and the Afghan Red Crescent Society
(ARCS). These government structures and local NGOs lead the response of most
emergencies, and cluster partners are assisting UNHCR with refugees, returnees and IDPs.
With regard to the transition process, the WASH Cluster is being abolished and its
responsibilities absorbed into the Water and Sanitation Group (WSG) – a sector coordination
platform to coordinate development activities. This is being carried out in line with the national
rural WASH policy, and coordination platforms are already in place at the sub-national level,
in the form of PDMCs and under the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development
(MRRD). It has been recognised that the MRRD capacity could be strengthened by a unit
focussing on emergencies.
12
Challenges:






Strengthening the provincial WASH Coordination bodies;
Highly politicised/lack of transparency/local political influencers;
Government capacity in the districts/provinces is weak;
Strengthening preparedness and contingency planning;
Improving the coordination mechanism through the MRRD;
Lack of inter-ministerial coordination.
State of Palestine
Presenter: Mageda Alawneh, Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and co-chair of the WASH
Cluster, State of Palestine.
Humanitarian context and structure of coordination:
The WASH Cluster in Palestine is led by UNICEF and is
co-chaired by the PWA. There are currently 26 local and
international organisations working on WASH, and there
has been a lot of discussion recently about the transition
process. The plan is for the transition to occur in the West
Bank (supported by UNICEF and the WASH Cluster) and
not in Gaza, where the Cluster Coordinator would
continue. The humanitarian WASH response in the West
Bank is mediated through the Consortium for Demolition
Response, and the Transitional Water Scarcity Response
Framework Project – arising from Area C restrictions. The
PWA has no access to Area C, so international actors are
forced to intervene. The Consortium for Demolition
Response is funded by ECHO and ACTED. So far the
response in Area C has been limited to humanitarian
assistance, and the donors are looking for more
sustainable solutions.
Rationale for transition:


The coordination capacity of water authorities in both the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank
has significantly improved. The PWA co-chair received formal training in cluster
coordination, has co-chaired WASH Cluster meetings since 2007, and leads water
scarcity interventions and transition initiatives to sustainable systems – such as the Water
Scarcity Response Framework.
A PWA-led National Humanitarian WASH Coordination (NHWC) Forum will act as an
interface between the Water and Sanitation Sector Working Group (WSSWG) and the
existing International Cooperation and Coordination and Unit (ICCU). The ICCU is a
mechanism within the PWA with strong donor support, and is well placed to bridge the
13
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting

gap between humanitarian and development work. The transition fits in with the
institutional push for the Palestinian government to strengthen service delivery and
humanitarian response and coordination.
The transition process will be facilitated by the involvement of EWASH and other WASH
partners; cluster members will have the opportunity to be involved in strategic and policy
discussions; donors will have greater access to information and data; and cluster
members will continue to work in areas where the government has no administrative or
security control.
Next steps:
Endorsement of the transition strategy, development of ToRs, endorsement of the ToRs by
WASH stakeholders, and roll out by the end of 2015.
Feedback from Transition group sessions and action points
Group (1): Common challenges and obstacles around transition.
Facilitator: Murray Burt (UNHCR)
Presenter: Rainer Gonzalez Palau (IOM, South Sudan)








Improving human resources for information management within government structures,
but not just about HR – the challenge is to institutionalise information management; Nepal
example: such an institution exists, but the issue is a lack of capacity.
Maintaining the information management system, tools and mechanisms once the
transition has taken place, linked to the challenge of sustaining coordination.
Lack of confidence in government coordination structures.
Weak capacity of emergency management committees.
Ensuring consistency at national and sub-national levels, as structures do not always
correlate.
Importance of planning for transition: the inclusion of a transition strategy, a plan B in case
transition fails and the recognition that hand-holding will occur for some time after
deactivation. Also important to make sure that all stakeholders are on board, including
donors.
Transitions can be difficult where no internal coordination structures exits within ministries.
Also it is important to ensure inter-cluster coordination to guarantee that all sectors are
covered.
Perhaps the main challenge stems from a lack of guidance, strategies and protocols
concerned with deactivation and the maintenance of post-transition structures,
considering guidance has to be country-specific.
Group (2): Examples/ideas for ‘getting it right’ in transition
Facilitator: Robert Fraser (IFRC)
Presenter: Charlie Floyer-Acland (ACTED, WASH Cluster Co-Coordinator, Whole of Syria)
Best practice for the transition process:
14






Have a realistic incremental timeframe to make sure that the transition process is
manageable.
Make sure that there is buy-in from the government; for example, in Jordan the
government is less willing to be involved in the coordination process.
The government should have a sustainable funding plan, which is included in country
Emergency Response Plans.
A monitoring or watchdog system should be in place to make sure that the transition
process is being implemented transparently and effectively. One way that this can be
done is by embedding international organisation staff within the government structures so
that they understand both the process and the relevance of the coordination tools used.
This also helps to achieve their buy-in.
Ensure that there is a clear ToR for coordination, demarcating roles, and government
capacity mapping to determine where capacity building should be focused. It was also
agreed that capacity building should focus on good governance.
The transition away from the cluster system could be led by international actors. This
should also be implemented within a set timeframe. One proposition would be to restrict
the timeframe for clusterisation to one year, after which the cluster system can be
renegotiated. Governments would then be obliged to reconsider the system annually,
which would avoid the current longevity of the existing clusters. One way to facilitate this
is to have indicators to assess the appropriateness of the transition process.
How it should look:

Once the transition process is complete a humanitarian working group composed of
government representatives and humanitarian actors could be established at local and
national levels to assess whether the cluster should be reactivated. This should be a multisector structure to ensure that conditions are right for everyone, and it should be
connected to international development processes – such as the Sustainable
Development Goals.
Group (3): Experiences of technologies and tools that have assisted in transition
Facilitator: Andy Bastable (Oxfam GB)
Presenter: Majeda Alawneh (Palestinian Water Authority)





In terms of information management: human resources, financial resources and the
availability of software need to be considered. With regard to human resources, the
commitment of both the government and the donors is vital, as the transition process
would not be valid otherwise.
The government has to be involved from the beginning, and all stakeholders and partners
should be engaged from the outset. This helps to understand what data the government
requires from the cluster to facilitate the process.
Existing databases and information management tools should be considered, and any
new systems should be simplified and be context-specific.
The capacity of governments to manage information flows needs to be improved.
The transition process should be clear: including the definition of roles and
responsibilities, which could be facilitated by guidance/strategies for successful transition
from the global level.
15
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
Plenary: transition
 Capacity mapping: Proposed by the second group to determine where to focus capacity
building initiatives, but it was unclear how this would be carried, out. Relevant tools exist,
but it is essential to assess the capacity of the government to be able to lead and be
accountable for coordination. But who’s responsibility is it to assess the Government, and
do we really know how to carry out proper capacity assessments and analysis? Using the
seven core functions of the WASH Cluster is an option – these functions and capacities
can also be analysed using the extensive list of competencies for Cluster Coordinators.
These are unrealistic and need to be prioritised – which the GWC is currently working on.
Another priority involves identifying minimum requirements in terms of coordination and
leadership skills. The OECD’s 12 principles of governance, endorsed by all OECD
countries, can also be a useful capacity mapping tool.
 Design an exit strategy from the outset: Transition is a process, and the first thing to
do during cluster activation is to consider an exit strategy. Somebody from the government
side should be embedded from the moment a cluster is activated, who is involved in the
design of an exit strategy and can lead the transition process.
 The humanitarian working group; Concept raised by group two should be explored
further. The need for a semi-dormant group that can be re-activated was one of the key
remarks made by the Humanitarian Coordinator in Palestine.
2.3. GWC support to Country Platforms
Existing tools and structures
Field Support Team (FST) presentation
Presenter: Dominique Porteaud (Global WASH Cluster Coordinator)
The initial Rapid Response Team (RRT) comprised 6 RECAs, 3-4 Cluster Coordinators (CCs)
RRTs, 4 information managers (IMs) and 3 Rapid Assessment Teams (RATs). However, the
decision was taken to combine these roles into something more comprehensive: the FST.
The idea was to increase the team to 25 regionally-based members. The new composition
would consist of an FST manager, 2 quality assurance personnel, 3 assessment personnel,
5 CCs, 5.5 preparedness personnel and 4 IMs. They would be regionally-based, with a lead
for each based in Geneva. To strengthen accountability, the decision was made to form an
FST Consortium (consisting of 7 NGOs), with the IFRC as the lead.
It was intended to be a two-year project – starting in January 2015 until December 2016. The
donors were very supportive about the idea of having a regionally-based FST, and initially
pledged USD 8 million. However, this was later reduced to USD 4.5 million, and halved again
to USD 2.4 million. This includes USD 1.6 million from ECHO until Dec 2016, USD 400,000
from OFDA for one year, and contributions in kind from NCA. The reduction in funding
16
inevitably led to a restructuring of the proposed FST: 4 Cluster Coordinators, 4 information
managers, one preparedness person and one assessment person – all of which are based
in Geneva, and not regionally as planned. Throughout the first half of 2015 there have only
been 3 FST members, whilst awaiting the funding, so its capacity was understandably limited.
But the new team is currently being strengthened and most of the staff are on-board. The
assessment approach has also been altered slightly: it is less of a WASH technical position
and more on specific assessment expertise (sampling, etc), previously noted as a weakness
of the RAT. The GWC through a OFDA grant managed by CARE have also finalised a global
agreement to be able to deploy REACH in emergencies to support WASH cluster data
collection.
Main questions arising/comments:
 Where there is a gap reflects some of the issues that have been raised in the meeting
today, with regard to capacity building – especially government counterparts and
contingency planning – which we tried to address through RECA positions in the earlier
phases of the cluster. A lot of good work was done, but there is still a gap. This meeting
will highlight the areas we need to focus on.
 FST dashboard: Shows the countries that have been supported, and the type of support
that has been provided. There are two main lines of support: direct in-country support and
remote support, so there are a variety of ways that the team can be used. Direct support
is prioritised using specific GWC deployment criteria. This is flexible and can also be used
also in preparedness (i.e. current deployment in Malawi) and in new emergencies. Though
deployed staff can move when priorities shift – as long as continuity is ensured. The
GWCC and Deputy Coordinator also deploy as a backup and in large-scale disasters (as
part of L3 arrangements), and there is a UNICEF standby (SBP) roster too. Deployment
of the FST staff is limited to three months, and exit strategies are discussed as soon as
the FST personnel arrive. SBP can be up to six months but does not ensure the same
predictability as the FST.
Information Management Toolkit (IMTK) and Assessments presentation
Presenter: David Alford (FST/GWC)
Overview of the IMTK:
Developed in 2014, the IMTK is a collection of tools and reviews of other tools primarily
intended for information managers (IMs). The core toolkit has segments that are relevant for
Cluster Coordinators and WASH PMs, but the main products are predominantly for use by
IMs. The toolkit includes general templates for IM strategies, notes, meeting minutes, logos
– everything that is required for the administrative functioning of the cluster. It also includes
a package of content on assessments, refined from the Assessment Working Group, and a
collection of ODK-type mobile data technologies, reviews of these technologies and
indicators. In terms of data and information, various different sources are required for WASH,
and IMs can refer to the IMTK so see if information is needed from other clusters. There is
also a lot on strategic planning and response monitoring – basic 4W templates, and guidance
on how to develop smart indicators. On reporting, there are a variety of tools for visualisation
17
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
and dissemination, and reviews of tools that can be used. Capacity building modules are
included, too, which can be used to build the necessary IM skillset.
Next steps:





Refining and improving the content of the toolkit (the full kit already exists on the website1),
making sure that all essential aspects of the humanitarian project cycle phases are
covered – that the latest guidance exists for each tool for each phase of the HPC.
Capacity building: linked with initiatives from other UNICEF Clusters on joint coordination
and IM training. There are currently 3 IMs working on capacity building, remote support
and mentoring within the FST.
Another initiative with UNICEF is the development of e-tools. The IMTK is currently Excelbased, with some indications of online databases that could be used. UNICEF is working
to turn activity information into something more useful for UNICEF programme and the
Clusters in terms of coordination.
The recently established Assessment Technical Working Group of the GWC will be
reviewing the indicators (in the indicator registry2) and questions used in assessments to
be able to update the humanitarian indicator registry and eventually a question bank. They
are also reviewing, with ACAPs, the work that has been done in terms of secondary data
reviews (SDR), which links with pre-emergency and during information.
There will also be a review of the multiple mobile technology tools.
Main questions arising/comments:
 Global-level tools need to be adapted to what already exists in-country; they should not
override them.
 New tools should be similar to the second version of the Rapid Assessment Tool (RAT),
with a drop-down menu of core indicators, but with room for contextual adaptability.
Working group session: Where can the GWC provide support?
Group (1): Preparedness and contingency
Presenter: Gregor Meerganz von Maedeazz (UNICEF Chief of WASH, Palestine)
The group identified three main areas for FST support: (1) the deployment of FST staff; (2)
remote support; (3) the development of software/tools that could help at the national level.
(1) Deployment of FST staff:

1
2
Technical GWC staff could be deployed on either a longer-term basis, for a number of
months, or for a much shorter period to facilitate a workshop to produce a
contingency/DRR plan, review existing documents, or to conduct training on information
management. Both would have to be inclusive, and would be led by the host government.
http://washcluster.net/im-toolkitpage/
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/applications/ir/indicators/global-clusters/11
18
(2) Remote support:



Sending out documents/templates that are already available that people in country offices
may not be aware of. Make a user friendly and real-time online sharing platform between
country coordinators. Quite a few participants in the group were unaware of the cluster
approach, or what tools were available, so the GWC could help sensitise those countries
that have a coordination mechanism in place but do not know much about the cluster.
The GWC could sustain communication streams after deployment.
Global advocacy: the GWC could leverage more funding/attention, or source funding from
alternative pools.
(3) The development of software/tools that could help at the national level:

The tools available are probably enough, but they need to be tailored to specific needs.
The consensus in the group was that the best tools are those that are developed in country
– together with a GWC technical staff member.
Group (2): Response
Presenter: Roberto Saltori (Whole of Syria WASH Cluster Coordinator, UNICEF)




Provision of a surge Information Manager/Cluster Coordinator – but also somebody to
‘kick-off’ an assessment. Recruitment support to the country office should also be part of
the package, to fill the gap once the technical staff leave.
Revision of the technical helpdesk: Already an initiative of the GWC but could do with
revision in terms of how it is implemented. The technical helpdesk could provide support
in terms of IM, assessments and coordination, and could be a useful repository of ToRs
and other useful documents/information. Previously too academic and not real-time
practical info.
Advocacy on funding and donor flexibility: part of preparedness but also part of response.
The GWC could also organise regional IM training, and not just provide a facilitator. This
could be supplemented by WASH Coordination training.
Group (3): Transition




Information management tools should be simplified and made adaptable to the specific
requirements of particular governments.
The GWC can provide guidance throughout the transition process, which could come in
the form of a checklist/guidance for transition, and advice on making it an effective
process.
The GWC could also provide technical support to facilitate the transition process – how
to start and sustain the transition.
Capacity building initiatives are also required, linked to assessments and trainings. Best
practice is also important – the GWC could share examples of success.
19
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
Plenary
 Online courses are useful, but face-to-face follow up discussions provide more
substantial feedback. One online course mentioned was BBR: Building Better Response,
developed by Harvard University 3 – which is essentially a numerisation of the cluster
coordinator handbook4, and explains what humanitarian reform is and how coordination
can be supported. It takes between four and six hours, so would be better to carry out
with the support of a technical staff member.
 It seems clear that the WASH Cluster is more comfortable with preparedness and
response, but there is definitely room for improvement with transition – concerned with
governance, legal frameworks and government strategies. Transition planning is a gap
that has not been properly tackled within the GWC and there is a need to strengthen the
link with the UNICEF work undergoing on the NHWC.
 Leadership, coordination and management skills should be integrated into
postgraduate courses to better prepare future WASH Coordinators. Field experience is
crucial but so too are leadership and management skills. GWC to put more emphasis on
soft skills in trainings and in recruitment.
 With regard to the technical helpdesk: only a handful of technical questions come out of
national coordinators, which could be dealt with by the GWCC instead of a helpdesk as a
starting point. But the initial idea of a helpdesk that emerged in the working group session
was perceived as more of a continuation of support once the transition process was
complete. Example from UNICEF and the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI),
where support is not so much about answering ad hoc questions but is a continuous
process of support which the GWC could replicate to country platforms.
 The FST is currently free of charge, and is therefore often misused. Its donors – ECHO
and the OFDA – are pushing the GWC to look at cost-recovery. UNICEF will be
conducting a consultancy to look into the existence of a mechanism to recover some of
the cost.
 With regard to training and workshops, the GWC is planning several events in 2016,
and requires input from both Cluster Coordinators and Sector Coordinators to gauge
preferences for the type of training/event – including leadership, coordination, the cluster
approach, transition, IM and so on – a SurveyMonkey will be sent. This will be a five-day
event, therefore allowing more time to go deeper into topics that were touched on today.
Skills development session: presentation skills
3
4
http://www.buildingabetterresponse.org/
http://washcluster.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/04/WASH-Cluster-Coordinator-Handbook.pdf
20
The final session of the workshop involved a quick presentation by GWCC on presentation
skills – designed to reinforce key competencies for Cluster/Sector Coordinators. It revolved
around two short videos: the first on common mistakes with PowerPoint presentations, and
the second was a TED talk on HIV prevalence in the DRC, and how donor agencies could
learn from the marketing of condoms. Participants were asked to identify elements from the
presentation that made it effective, which included: a very direct style of delivery; confidence;
one key message; telling a story; the use of photos; simple, but provocative use of language;
uncongested PowerPoint slides; and the use of PowerPoint as a visual aid, and not to tell the
story.
3. Conclusion and next steps
The first National WASH Cluster and Sector Coordinator Meeting was considered to be a
success, and outputs from the day’s discussions were shared at the 21 st annual GWC
Meeting held over the following two days. The initiative was well-received by the participants,
who called for a similar event to be held next year. To facilitate this, and to gauge preferences
for other events in 2016, the GWC will send out a survey for input from Cluster and Sector
Coordinators for a weeklong event for National Coordinators to be held in the first quarter of
next year. The GWC is also available at all times to be contacted by national-level WASH
actors for guidance and support.
All of the day’s presentations, and a number of tools requested for sharing, can be found on
Dropbox using the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Global%20WASH%20Cluster%20Mtg%20-%20Nairobi
The existing range of tools and resources developed by the GWC members to support core
coordination functions in the build up to and during an emergency response can be found on
the GWC website at: http://washcluster.net/tools-and-resources/.
Other useful resources mentioned throughout the day are available via the following links:




The IM Toolkit: http://washcluster.net/im-toolkitpage/
The Indicator Registry:
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/applications/ir/indicators/global-clusters/11
Building Better Response (BBR): http://www.buildingabetterresponse.org/
The Cluster Coordinator Handbook: http://washcluster.net/wpcontent/uploads/sites/5/2014/04/WASH-Cluster-Coordinator-Handbook.pdf
21
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinator Meeting
AGENDA
National WASH Cluster / Sector Coordinators meeting: 13th October 2015 – Nairobi, Kenya
Facilitator
Topic
09:00
Nick
Experiences from the
Field: Preparedness
09:40
3 x SAG
Breakout sessions 3 Groups
10:20
Nick
Plenary
08:30
10:50
Jamal
Experiences from the
Field: Transition
12:00
3 x SAG
Breakout sessions 4 Groups
12:40
Jamal
Plenary
13:10
Defining Transition – Game
Presentation on Transition: Challenges and best practice: Country presentation
10 min + 20 mins panel.
Afghanistan
Liberia
SoP
Jean +
CAST
Where is GWC and should
we be on the support to
Country Platforms?
Coffee Break
15:45
Jean
Dominique
Skill Development Session
Time
0:50
0:30
0:30
0:20
1.
2.
3.
What are the key challenges / Obstacles?
Examples / Ideas for ‘getting it right’
Experiences of technologies & tools that have assisted in transition
0:50
0:40
Feedback from Group Sessions and Action Points
Where can GWC support? What’s the role of the CO?
0:30
Lunch
15:30
15:45
Presentation
GWCC
Burundi
Nepal
DRC
Coffee Break
11:10
14:10
Objective
Registration, welcome and intros – explanation of the day
Defining Preparedness – Game
Challenges and best practice: Country presentations
10 min x 3 + 20 mins panel.
1. What are the key challenges / Obstacles?
2. Examples / Ideas for ‘getting it right’
3. Technologies & tools that can assist in preparedness
Feedback from Group Sessions and Action Points
4. Where can GWC support? What’s the role of the CO?
1:00




Plenary discussion on project and tools of the GWC (10 mins)
IMTK Assessments: What’s happening on IMTK and Assessments: plus Q and A
RRT/FST – Achievements until now…and way forward (10 mins)
What’s the gap? How can these be better used – informed; new areas? Country’s
experience of Global Support and where they see a need? (Groups/tables). What
needs to be carried forward/strengthened? How can the GWC better support national
platforms? (40 mins)
Group feedback (5 mins/group) + 10 min Q and A
Learning what kind of leader you are and how people are lead; Strengthening Leadership
Skills
CAST/IFRC
1:20
Group
rapporteur
0:30
1:15
22