WASH emergency materials project
Findings and recommendations of the global
stockpiling analysis
Tim Foster and Niall Roche, 13th August 2008
Acknowledgements
The consultants wish to thank all those who provided information so freely, Andy Bastable
(Oxfam) for managing the project, Jean McCluskey and Kathryn Harries (UNICEF WES team)
for their support and guidance, the Project Steering Group for their advice and feedback, and
the WASH Global Cluster for their invaluable inputs.
Tim Foster and Niall Roche
533561615, page i, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... i
Table of contents ...................................................................................................................... ii
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................iii
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction and Background to the Project.............................................................................. 2
Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology and specific activities .......................................................................................... 3
Identify current best practice, synergies and limitations ........................................................... 3
Develop mapping tool ............................................................................................................... 6
Define and agree with the steering group what is included as WASH materials and agree
definitions of equipment verses population coverage ............................................................... 6
Mapping capacity ..................................................................................................................... 7
Quantifiable Stock ................................................................................................................. 8
Qualitative Mapping .............................................................................................................. 8
Strategic directions ............................................................................................................. 11
Options ............................................................................................................................... 14
Recommended Strategy ......................................................................................................... 15
Global stocks ...................................................................................................................... 15
Who stockpiles .................................................................................................................... 16
Where to stockpile .............................................................................................................. 16
How should stockpiles be organised? ................................................................................. 16
Review of mapping framework ............................................................................................ 17
Identifying lessons that need to be learned, and then doing so .......................................... 18
Further work ........................................................................................................................... 18
Framework for evaluating emergency materials ..................................................................... 18
Final outputs ........................................................................................................................... 19
Annex 1. Terms of Reference ................................................................................................. 20
Annex 2. WASH emergency materials mapping framework ................................................... 22
Annex 3. Final outputs agreed with Steering Group ............................................................... 25
Annex 4. Potential Donor Partners ......................................................................................... 26
Annex 5. List of Potential Agency Partners ............................................................................ 28
Annex 6. Concept paper ......................................................................................................... 29
Annex 7. Contacts .................................................................................................................. 30
Annex 8. Mapping results summary ....................................................................................... 38
Annex 9. Mapping results breakdown .................................................................................... 40
Annex 10. Options .................................................................................................................. 42
533561615, page ii, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Glossary
ACF - Action Contre La Faim
CCM – Camp coordination and management
CRED – Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
CRS – Catholic Relief Services
DFID – Department for International Development
ECHO – European Community Humanitarian Office
ESC – Emergency Shelter Cluster
ICRC – International Committee of the Red Cross
IFRC – International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
INGO – International Non-Governmental Organisations
LSU – Logistics Support Unit (of UNOCHA)
LTA – Long Term Agreement
MSF – Médecins sans Frontières
UK – United Kingdom
UNHRD – United Nations Humanitarian Response Depot
UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund
UNOCHA – United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance
US – United States
WASH – Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WFP – World Food Programme
533561615, page iii, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Executive Summary
The WASH emergency materials project is one of fifteen projects developed under the WASH
cluster work-plan 2006/08 to help address capacity gaps in the sector. Two consultants were
engaged in October 2007 to work on the project and the following outlines the purpose,
methodologies and specific activities plus findings and recommendations against the terms of
reference. A draft report was presented to the project Steering Group at a meeting in
Copenhagen on 29th April 2008 and final outputs were agreed at that meeting, see Annex 3.
Final outputs agreed with Steering Group. A key output was a draft concept paper which was
discussed at a further Steering Group meeting in Oxford on 27 th June 2008. A final draft of the
concept paper was submitted on 12th August 2008 for the Steering Group to take forward.
The initial purpose of the project was to map existing global WASH contingency stocks and
make recommendations for extra stock to be made available if necessary. Key informants were
identified and consulted predominantly through interview. Current practice highlights the fact
that many players are engaged in the stockpiling of emergency materials including donors, UN
agencies, INGOs, International Organisations, the private sector and groups/consortia of
INGOs. Many of the other clusters with the exception of the shelter cluster are not engaged in
stockpiling or are only getting started in terms of examining the issue of emergency materials.
UNHRD, a WFP network has become a significant new entity as a service provider to owners of
stockpiles while the LSU of UNOCHA hold a mandate to map global stockpiles. Many donors
engage in stockpiling and some are willing to take direction from the WASH cluster in order to
avoid overlaps and fill gaps in stockpiles.
The capacity of the sector to respond in terms of stock availability is significant though difficult to
quantify due to problems with the way in which capacity is measured, the availability of data
from some of the main players and the challenges of predicting future needs. This project
worked on the assumption that capacity should meet the needs of 500,000 people. Some
confusion also exists on what constitutes WASH materials with particular overlaps identified on
items sometimes distributed under the shelter and health sectors.
In addition to mapping the actual stock available this project also engaged in qualitative
mapping comparing the approaches of the different players and identifying the key issues that
relates to ensuring the WASH sector responds speedily and effectively to rapid onset
emergencies. A wide range of issues were identified and a recommended strategy proposed.
In essence it was found that there is no strong justification for a significant increase in global
stocks as a whole. Evidence to justify a scaling up was patchy and anecdotal at best
highlighting in itself the lack of attention currently given to assessing the relevance and
effectiveness of current arrangements. Some components of WASH (water for example) do
seem to have ample supplies of materials at present but other components (sanitation and
hygiene promotion for example) seem to be lacking in quantity. However, there was sufficient
consensus to suggest that a small increase in stockpiles was required as part of a
recommended strategy to ensure all speedy and effective implementers have reasonable and
fair access to stockpiles thus ensuring an effective response.
It is recommended that a combination of players continue to hold stockpiles, those stockpiles
can be stockpiled where the owners prefer including in regional locations. They should be
organised using comparable descriptions of items and capable of dispatch within 72 hours with
consumable items stocked capable of supplying needs for 2 months. Items should not be
logoed but labelled to describe what they are. The WASH cluster co-ordinator should preferably
be the single point of contact for all WASH actors on the ground when it comes to identifying
needs and mobilising materials. Key to assessing impact is putting a system in place for
accounting and evaluating how well materials were used to increase the speed and
effectiveness of WASH emergency response.
533561615, page 1 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Additional recommendations are presented including: the mapping of stockpiles and
overcoming some of the challenges currently faced by the LSU of UNOCHA; the need to bring
all stakeholders together to discuss needs and gaps; the need to build the capacity of WASH
co-ordinators in the area of emergency materials; and the need to consider the linking of global
and regional stocks with those held at a national or more local level.
Introduction and Background to the Project
‘Humanitarian Reform seeks to improve the effectiveness of humanitarian response by ensuring
greater predictability, accountability and partnership.’1
Within this context the Global Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) cluster has developed a
work plan for 2006/08 formulated into five strategic areas intended to cover outstanding
capacity gaps as identified by the WASH Cluster Working Group, namely:
1. WASH Sector Co-ordination and Advocacy
2. Information Management and Standards Policy
3. WASH Sector Capacity for Humanitarian Response
4. WASH Sector Preparedness
5. WASH Sector Best Practice and Learning
The Emergency Materials project is one of fifteen projects developed under this work plan and
is ‘part of the strategy to increase the speed and effectiveness of a WASH emergency response
by having the right equipment available at the right time for the agency on the ground.’ 2
The project was begun in October 2007 with the engagement of two independent consultants
namely Tim Foster (Team Leader) and Niall Roche. They were contracted when an Oxfam GB
staff member initially earmarked to conduct the project was unable to do so for medical
reasons.3
Purpose
The purpose of the project as set out in the Terms of Reference is ‘to map existing global
WASH contingency stocks and make recommendations for extra stock to be made available if
necessary’.
The purpose of the first draft of this report was to present ‘to the steering group of the findings
and recommendations of the global stockpiling analysis report in order gain agreement on the
strategy for ensuring the right WASH equipment at the right time in the right place.’4
The focus was on WASH contingency stocks held at the global level rather than in country
stockpiles held by national governments or international players in disaster preparedness and
response.
Following discussion of the draft report at their meeting in Copenhagen on 29 th April 2008, the
Steering Group agreed final outputs with the consultants, see Annex 3. Final outputs agreed
with Steering Group . A key output was a draft concept paper which was discussed at a further
Steering Group meeting in Oxford on 27th June 2008. A final draft of the concept paper was
submitted by the consultants on 12th August 2008 for the Steering Group to take forward.
1
Humanitarian Reform website
Project Terms of Reference
3 The Steering Group may wish to consider the advantages and disadvantages of using external
consultants
4 Project Terms of Reference, item 6
2
533561615, page 2 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Methodology and specific activities
The methodology detailed in the project TOR emphasised identifying and obtaining information
from key informants within other clusters and organisations holding major stockpiles of
emergency equipment. The consultants followed this methodology using both informal and
structured interviews during phone and where possible face-to-face interviews. Material was
also received by email.
Following discussions during the Global WASH cluster meeting 6th February 2008, and
discussions with the Project Manager and WES Emergencies Adviser, the consultants also:
 Interviewed a number of past and present WASH cluster coordinators to determine the
exact nature of the problem on the ground and to extract ideas on a future strategy.
 Interviewed a number of UNICEF staff in Geneva and New York, and at both Regional
and Country level with a similar purpose but also to map existing approaches to the
supply of emergency materials.
 Carried out a limited literature review to try to identify documented evidence to
demonstrate that the supply of emergency materials is a capacity gap in emergency
responses, what those gaps are and what can be predicted in terms of future changes in
the nature of disasters due to climate change or other trends.
These additional activities are seen as important to complement the mapping exercise which
relied on comparing current global stocks with theoretical needs in a hypothetical major
emergency to identify gaps. The interviews with WASH cluster coordinators and UNICEF staff,
and the literature review on the other hand focused on whether there had actually been gaps in
recent major emergencies.
Details of people contacted are given in Annex 7. Contacts.
Identify current best practice, synergies and limitations
An initial focus was to identify the key stakeholders in relation to emergency WASH materials
and get an initial feel for current practice which informed the process of more detailed mapping
at a later stage. Direction was given to speak with the other clusters, specifically health,
nutrition, shelter, education, camp co-ordination/management and logistics. Other stakeholders
directed to include at this stage were the key donors including but not limited to those in the
OCHA central register of stockpiles. The donors contacted at this point included the respective
departments of the Canadian, Irish, Japanese, Swedish, Swiss, Irish, UK and US governments.
Additional stakeholders to contact were proposed by those initially contacted and those
communicated with also included members of international NGOs (Oxfam GB, World Vision and
CARE International), members of the private sector who supply WASH specific items, UNICEF
Supplies Division, the Logistics Support Unit within UNOCHA in Geneva, a representative of
UNHRD in Brindisi, Italy and an independent consultant who had recently reviewed the
Norwegians Emergency Preparedness System.
Current (best) practice
The emergency shelter cluster (ESC) is currently reviewing its strategy, especially in regard to
logistics, and has a number of ongoing projects with very similar aims as this WASH project.
The joint ESC lead/convenor UNHCR and IFRC also hold significant stockpiles of materials.
ESC is also the cluster which has the potential for the greatest overlap with the WASH cluster in
terms of items. The WASH cluster coordination team in Geneva is currently finalising the
responsibilities and accountabilities matrix between the ESC and WASH clusters, as well as
other clusters.
The consultants have maintained close links and regular contact with the ESC project and
logistics staff, and plan to work with the WASH cluster coordination team to ensure that final
533561615, page 3 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
output of this project and the matrix are fully compatible. However, until the strategy review is
made public, the ESC projects further advanced and the matrices finalised, it is not possible to
make firm recommendations at this stage other than to remain engaged.
The CCM is not considering stockpiling of materials for their cluster.
Health cluster – contacts made, limited information received, they will only be considering
stockpiling later this year.
Education cluster – Stockpiling is something the education cluster tends not to do. It is difficult
for them to know what is needed in advance and they have also have a problem of raising funds
in advance of a crisis. SCF UK does however have virtual stockpiles and maintain two-year
agreements with suppliers which allows for all stock to be replaced with newer material after
those two-years.
Nutrition cluster is not as commodity driven as much as some of the other clusters and are
doing very little in regard to stockpiling, they also lack resources to do so. There are potential
overlaps with WFP on CSB and UNIMIX. In their view post delivery management is the main
problem. They are concerned about the scattered nature of stock data. They recommend
EMOPS/UNICEF to take a lead on predictive analysis.
Logistics cluster do not engage in stockpiling activities except for equipment for their own
operational equipment. They feel that transport, warehousing, congestion and customs at the
point of entry, and access were the key points to consider.
On the donor side it was clear that many donors stockpile of emergency materials. All those
who responded hold physical stocks and many also hold virtual stocks. Some are increasing or
planning to increase the quantity of stock held but narrowing the range of items held largely to
NFI type stock. The principle reasons given for restricting the range of stock to NFI type stock
were to make the management of such stock easier. For example they do not want to hold
stock that has a limited shelf life. Another key point in terms of existing practice is the tendency
for several donors to utilise the UNHRD not only to house and transport the stockpiles they own
but also to use UNHRD and/or LSU (see section on Mapping Capacity for further information on
LSU) to procure items for their stockpiles.
Several donors contacted were enthusiastic about this project and open to the potential
for this project’s findings to influence the content and specifications of their stockpiles.
In recent years the UNHRD has emerged as an important player in the area of emergency
materials. It is based in Brindisi, Italy with regional hubs not only in Brindisi covering Europe but
other hubs located and serving Dubai (Middle East), Malaysia (South East Asia), Panama (Latin
America) and Ghana (Africa). It is a WFP network able to deliver humanitarian relief items within
24/48 hours. The network provides storage and logistics support and services to a wide range
of partners including UN agencies, international humanitarian organisations, governmental and
non-governmental organisations. Research for this project indicated that more and more
stakeholders are making use of UNHRD and the services it provides.
In the past some agencies felt the need to physically hold stockpiles of materials knowing that
they had them and could dispatch them in response to a disaster. The trend identified is
changing to a situation where more and more responders to emergencies are engaging with the
private sector to hold virtual stock. There is a growing confidence in the ability of the private
sector to supply materials of the required specification at short notice. This is partly explained by
the tendency to have LTAs or Long Term Agreements with suppliers. The private sector
themselves are trying to meet the demands of those they supply by developing more
appropriate products that not only have value as part of the relief phase of a response but can
be utilised in the longer term. Although demand still outstrips supply the private sector is putting
systems in place to be more responsive at short notice. Some European based firms are
engaging or investigating the manufacture and storage of materials in emerging economies
such as China and India. There is a sense that the competition from emerging suppliers in such
economies is forcing suppliers to be more responsive and innovative. A potential downside
533561615, page 4 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
highlighted by suppliers from emerging economies is the potential ethical issues in utilising
suppliers from countries with lower standards of governance.
In terms of best practice many were of the opinion that emergency materials should not have a
logo/brand present on individual units. While some agreed it was acceptable to brand pallets on
dispatch to a disaster area the absence of a logo helps to make the materials more acceptable
to a wider range of potential receivers in the field. Some pointed to the success of Irish Aid’s
stock in Brindisi which is regularly called upon and this stock does not carry any logos.
Synergies
There is potential for strong synergies between:
 ESC and WASH: avoiding gaps and overlaps, learning from each other, sharing
information etc. Also between the Health and WASH clusters.
 WASH and the donors: WASH advising the donors on the ‘right items’ to stock and being
able to draw down on those stocks in emergencies
 WASH and LSU: for ongoing mapping although see limitations below
Limitations
Donors. They do not necessarily have their own capacity to assess needs on the ground and
do not have operational experience to inform their stockpiling strategy.
Clusters. Each cluster has set its own programme and methodology for looking at stockpiling,
which are not necessarily directly compatible with WASH’s.
Several respondents outlined some of the difficulties and limitations to the UNOCHA central
register of emergency stockpiles. Many felt the central register was not delivering adequately
though many were quick to point out that this was not necessarily a problem of UNOCHA’s
making. UNOCHA are dependent on receiving information from those who stockpile emergency
materials and unfortunately many do not supply the information or do not supply the depth of
information required in order for the central register to be a useful tool at present. Another
problem associated with the central register is the lack of awareness that many players have
with regard to the central registers existence and the data contained within it.
A key limitation identified during the course of this project was the lack of solid data outlining
what the current problem is in relation to WASH emergency materials and what can be
predicted in terms of future problems. Part of the solution to this was a very limited literature
review. One review of the Watsan response to the Pakistan earthquake of October 2005
identified the immediate availability of latrine slabs as a problem in trying to address the
sanitation situation (Ahmad et al, WEDC, 2006). A document trying to capture lessons from the
Tsunami of December 2004 highlighted a number of issues though not specific to WASH. Of
several lessons learned the most appropriate to this project is the issue of inappropriate goods
being donated and the need to have a single point of control for all the supplies coming into an
affected area and allocation of supplies based on need. (Fritz Institute, 2005).
A constraint identified in relation to emergency materials is the way in which stock levels are
determined. Most players seem to pick a stocking level based on very little analysis of what
stock is needed and how much stock is needed. This is partly explained by the lack of
consultation/co-ordination between the key stakeholders engaged in the supply and use of
emergency materials. It is also partly explained by the fact that many do not seem to examine
the number and size of emergencies over a period of time to help define future needs. Many
make their decisions based on historical data of draw down patterns on stock but not on
predictions of expected response capacity needed as a WASH sector. Potential sources of
information to draw upon were identified as the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT)
within CRED at Louvain University in Belgium and the annual World Disasters Report published
by IFRC. In addition, it was felt that some predictive analysis in response to the changes
brought about by climate change was needed. A recent report by Oxfam International was
533561615, page 5 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
highlighted which states that “the total number of natural disasters has quadrupled in the last
two decades – most of them floods, cyclones and storms. Over the same period the number of
people affected by disasters has increased from around 174 million to an average of 250 million
a year” (Oxfam, 25th November 2007)
Another key limitation felt by some people was the lack of feedback from the field with regard to
how well a response has gone or is going. The private sector complained that getting feedback
from the field on how well a particular product has performed is extremely difficult. Donors for
the most part expressed the difficulty in obtaining real time or post emergency evaluations or
written reports from partners who received emergency materials. The donors also indicated that
they had a capacity gap in terms of being able to conduct post disaster evaluations themselves
to assess their partners and to assess how well the materials they supplied were utilised.
Develop mapping tool
Following the initial consultation with key stakeholders on existing best practice, synergies and
limitations with some gathering of information on current stockpiles, the second stage was to
develop a mapping tool and engage in more detailed mapping.
A draft framework was circulated to the Steering Group in early March 2008 for comment and
approval, and subsequently used for the mapping exercise. Minor amendments were made in
the light of experience in conducting interviews, see Annex 2. WASH emergency materials
mapping framework.
Early investigations quickly established that the question of speed and effectiveness in
relation to emergency materials goes far beyond stockpiles and any strategy should
consider all the issues within the supply chain, not just stockpiles.
Define and agree with the steering group what is included
as WASH materials and agree definitions of equipment
verses population coverage
Tables 1 & 2. (see the summary and detailed material lists in Annex 6. Concept paper) seek to
define the WASH materials considered in the project
Table 1 was subsequently been refined where appropriate during the mapping exercise to
reflect the views and recommendations of those interviewed. It does not include all WASH
materials which may be used in emergencies, rather it seeks to list those items which are
essential in the majority of emergencies and therefore should be considered as potential
stockpile items. At the Copenhagen meeting, The Steering Group accepted Table 1 as a useful
summary of WASH emergency materials and a final version is included in the Concept Paper.
Table 2 is more detailed but has benefited from less input from key informants because it was
found to be too detailed for the mapping interviews. Most respondents found Table 1 more
useful as a basis for discussion. In addition, there are at least two other consultants currently
undertaking similar work and it would seem only prudent to work with those consultants to
develop Table 2 if the Steering Group feels this would be useful. Following the Copenhagen
meeting Table 2 was developed further to be part of the Concept Paper requested at that
meeting, see below.
The population coverage of the listed equipment has been calculated in Table 2 based
wherever possible on Sphere and other widely recognised standards. Some estimates had to
be made where standards were not found, and is some cases further work is required to
estimate coverage for items such as backpack sprayers.
It was suggested that this project focus on the development of a strategy that could respond to
the immediate needs of a major emergency affecting 500,000 people. The possibility of
533561615, page 6 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
considering three such emergencies in a year, of which two were simultaneous, was also
discussed. In Table 2 just one major emergency affecting 500,000 people was considered with
estimates made of what material would need to be stockpiled to meet these needs before other
supply chain management options kicked in. Working on this Table was useful in raising
issues, but soon became heavily loaded with assumptions which risked invalidating the
calculations.
Some key points arising from the development of Table 1
 There is a trend to stockpile items to address needs at the household level within
dispersed populations (‘new’ style emergencies) while maintaining capacity to deal with
large concentrated populations in camps (‘old’ style emergencies).
 Broadly speaking items are better defined, more clearly specified, and stockpiled at
higher levels the further one moves toward the top left hand corner of Table 1 whereas
much of the current research and development is lower down and/or to the right in the
table.
 The items in boxes with a grey background are often referred to as Non-Food Items and
are commonly stocked and distributed by organisations or departments within
organisations outside the WASH cluster or sector.
 Tools are distributed for a range of purposes have been included for completeness but
have not been mapped.
 Items in the excluded column were excluded from the mapping interviews but individual
agencies may stockpile them to reflect their specialised area of activity (e.g. MSF may
stockpile body bags for Ebola outbreaks and others drilling rigs)
 The Humanitarian Reform website refers to four cross cutting issues namely gender,
HIV/AIDS, environment and age which should be mainstreamed. These have been
considered primarily in relation to toilets and the non food items in relation to gender,
HIV/AIDS and age especially within the Hygiene Group. From an environment
perspective some felt it would be important to try and source materials as locally as
possible and thus reduce the carbon footprint in getting the materials to the affected
area.
Mapping capacity
Global mapping of existing stockpiles is a mandated responsibility of the Logistics Support Unit
(LSU) of UNOCHA. In theory the central register of stockpiles contains data on the all the global
stockpiles held by a wide range of stockholders. In practice much of the data is not there. Some
stakeholders are not listed on the register and some stakeholders’ information is incomplete.
Some parts viewed showed the name of the item but not the quantity held by that particular
stakeholder. Some of the information is quite detailed in terms of technical specifications of the
items while some of the information is more basic. Some suggested that the WASH cluster
should do the mapping as the cluster would be better equipped to find the gaps and adjust
accordingly. The question this might raise is should each cluster map its own stock and what
would be the resource implications of doing this?
Broadly speaking stock items are mapped according to a sector or category. Shelter is the
predominant category within which items are classified. There is some degree of confusion
about the category or sector some WASH items are listed under. For example collapsible jerry
cans are often listed as a shelter item. Mosquito nets are sometimes listed as a health item or a
shelter item. Within WASH the items are not generally mapped by sub-category such as
hygiene promotion, water supply, excreta disposal, vector control, solid waste management and
drainage.
533561615, page 7 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Quantifiable Stock
It was never going to be possible to map all the existing WASH emergency materials so a
pragmatic decision was agreed to target the most of the key known holders of WASH
emergency materials.
From the donor perspective information was sought from the respective departments in the
Canadian, Irish, Japanese, Norwegian, Swedish, Swiss, UK and US governments.
From the INGO perspective information was sought from Oxfam GB, MSF, ACF, World Vision,
Mercy Corps and CARE International.
From the International Organisation perspective information was sought from IFRC and ICRC
and finally in relation to the UN information was sought from UNICEF and UNHCR. Other key
players involved in the mapping and holding of emergency materials were also engaged namely
UNOCHA who hold a database of emergency materials referred to as the Central Register of
Emergency Stockpiles and UNHRD who procure and hold stockpiles on behalf of partner
organisations such as donors and INGOs. A key emerging player in the holding of stock is the
Supply Chain Consortium (SCC), a grouping of the INGOs World Vision, CARE International,
Mercy Corps and CRS.
The general finding, see Annex 8. Mapping results summary and Annex 9. Mapping results
breakdown, in relation to quantifiable stock is that there is a significant quantity of WASH
equipment already stockpiled. It is held by a wide variety of stakeholders including donors,
international NGOs, international organisations such as IFRC and ICRC and there are plans for
UNICEF and a consortium of INGOs, the Supply Chain Consortium to hold significant quantities
of WASH emergency materials.
Qualitative Mapping
A question checklist was drawn up based upon some of the responses in the initial
consultations with stakeholders and this formed the basis for a semi-structured interview with a
number of respondents including the majority of donors contacted throughout the project. The
interviews, meetings and written responses received informed the final mapping framework.
The following sections reflect the issues as distilled from the interviews. Many of the responses
were provided in confidence and so it is not felt appropriate to attribute some of the comments
to particular people. These questions try to address wider aspects of the supply chain and not
just those related directly to stockpiles and access to stockpiles.
There are a wide number of approaches undertaken by the key stakeholders identified. Rather
than detail each one, we developed a number of options which demonstrate the full range of
approaches for the Copenhagen meeting. First, here are the issues and some observations on
each of those issues.
Range of WASH materials
Table 1 was accepted as a comprehensive overview of what constitutes WASH emergency
equipment although many operational agencies treat the items in the right hand column as more
general relief items which are managed and distributed by non-WASH staff.
Not all stakeholders stock all items or types of item; the donor community in particular are
notable for their preference to hold items that do not have a limited shelf life and thus can be
kept in a warehouse without much need for rotation on a frequent basis. Donors for the most
part tend not to hold equipment such as pumps or consumables such as those needed for water
quality testing. The predominant items held by donors for instance are water containers and
tanks.
There is an observed problem in relation to the description of stock items or the nomenclature
used as different stakeholders use different descriptions for essentially the same item or the
same description for an item that can vary greatly. For example “water treatment units” as
described by donors vary in capacity from 2 litres per minute to 15 cubic metres per hour. From
533561615, page 8 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
a logistics point of view some suggested that the selection of materials to stockpile need to take
account of the item’s bulk, weight and handling ability particularly if stockpiled for potential
airfreight.
Another comment made in relation to the type of stock is to consider the long term application of
the stock item beyond the immediate emergency phase. Perhaps stock items will be left over
and instead of being put into storage or dumped they could be used in sustainable
programming. For example the water disinfection products dispatched to a crisis affected area
might match those products utilised or promoted in the development context of that country or
region. Use of stock in regular programmes also ensures that stock is turned over and kept
‘fresh’.
The trend amongst donors has been to reduce the range of items in more recent years. It was
observed that many of the items held are under the sub-heading of water with little stockpiles
held under the sub-headings of sanitation, vector control and hygiene. A suggestion was also
made to differentiate the quantities within the range according to the geographical area covered
and perhaps the time of year. For example stockpiles might be increased in Latin America in
advance of the hurricane season. The range might vary for regions prone to drought which
would be different to regions more prone to flooding or other extreme weather events. Some
might refer to this as scenario planning.
Estimating capacity
Some agencies consider capacity in terms of population served, while others maintain stock in
terms of minimum and maximum stocking levels of individual items based on past usage without
any clear relation to population.
Establishing how population served had been calculated was not always easy. It appeared to
be relatively straightforward for water supply but increasingly difficult for sanitation, vector
control and hygiene promotion.
Working backwards from long lists of equipment to calculate theoretical population coverage
was equally challenging.
Stockpiles
Organisations policy and practice in regard to stockpiling vary considerably among those
contacted.
Oxfam for instance has practically all its equipment stockpiled near Oxford in the UK. UNICEF
on the other hand does not currently hold any or at least very little WASH equipment in
Copenhagen, while national and country offices in disaster prone areas may well maintain
stockpiles5. IFRC on the other hand has considerable resources available with European
national societies, some stock in Geneva and regional hubs, and a growing quantity of
equipment held by national societies in disaster prone countries. Donors and others meanwhile
may decide to use UNHRD’s stores.
The advantage of using the UNHRD hubs is that storage is free. Another advantage to the
UNHRD hubs is they are chosen to be closer to affected regions and the availability of aircraft
for airlift. Another point in relation to storage in the case of UNHRD is that they store greater
quantities of materials in some hubs (Malaysia for instance) due to the greater density of
population in some parts of the world compared to others. They also tend to store items suitable
for cold weather climates in Dubai which is the closest hub to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Another element to this was the feeling/understanding that Asia can access stocks from
suppliers much faster than Africa suggesting Asian hubs could hold less physical stock in the
knowledge that virtual stock could be accessed more easier and quicker. By contrast it was felt
5
Policy currently under review
533561615, page 9 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
that African hubs would need to hold a higher percentage of physical stocks because the
capacity to supply sufficient quantities of stock rapidly does not exist in Africa.
The decision about where to stock items is finally very much agency-specific and not solely
based on an analysis of where emergencies may happen.
Deployment times for an organisation’s own use would normally be measured in days. Indeed
given the short period when the impact of stockpiled materials can justify their cost, any
deployment measured in weeks instead of days would make a mockery of the whole stockpile
strategy.
It is recognised however that while some materials are required within days of being of request,
further materials may be required weeks or indeed months later. With increasing lead time, the
justification for stockpiling however falls away and the importance of LTAs and international and
local procurement increases rapidly and should be more cost effective.
There was considerable variation in both the willingness to share information about stockpiles
and the level of detail provided. MSF and ICRC for instance are known to be major stock
holders but are formally outside the Cluster, and it was not possible to obtain more than a
general overview of their stocks at best.
In light of the difficulties faced in estimating capacity and in obtaining information on stockpiles,
the table of global capacity, see Annex 8. Mapping results summary and Annex 9. Mapping
results breakdown,should therefore be treated with caution.
Access to stockpiles
Non-donor stockpile holders maintain those stocks primarily for their own organisation’s use.
Their willingness to share with other organisations whether cluster members or not varies but
any decision to do so has in the past and remains one which is taken on a case-by-case basis.
Special cases are the Supply Chain Consortium whose members are currently negotiating
MOUs to govern how they might share equipment, and IFRC which has of course a special
relationship with National Societies.
Criteria and conditions which apply in reaching a decision include:
 Whether the organisation has material stockpiled beyond its own immediate needs
 Strength of organisational and possibly more importantly personal relationships
 Confidence the equipment providing organisation has in the organisation receiving the
equipment
 Ability of the receiving organisation to pay or replace the equipment either in advance or
later.
 Profile of the emergency
Similar conditions apply to long term agreements with suppliers.
Financial and administrative challenges of dealing with the release of equipment to other
organisations were considered major constraints.
In the consultants’ view building up the confidence between organisations through working
successfully as Cluster members is the way forward to encourage the sharing of equipment.
This could be backed up by a statement of principles, but it would be premature to attempt to
create binding MOUs between the cluster and stockpiling organisations.
Deployment for another organisations use need not be that much longer than that for an
organisation’s own use. The key determinant is the willingness to share equipment in the first
place.
533561615, page 10 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Strategic directions
Problems with getting the right equipment in the right place at the right time
in recent emergencies
The picture that emerged from the interviews was that in recent emergencies there had not
been any significant problem with getting the right equipment in the right place at the right time.
A number of qualifications are required:
 There were problems reported in relation to the wrong items being sent for instance in
the Tsunami response
 The Tsunami was recognised as being an exceptional disaster and doubts were raised
whether it was realistic to stockpile against such a disaster
 The fact that there was not a problem was often because adequate stockpiles had been
built up following shortcomings in previous emergencies
 Equipment problems may well have been masked by more critical challenges faced in
the response, especially in terms of the shortage of human resource and accurate and
timely needs assessments.
 While overall there may have been adequate equipment available, much of this
equipment would have been held by the larger agencies, and there remains a question
about to what extent this equipment should be shared with smaller agencies who do not
have the resources to stockpile equipment.
Who should specify items?
Oxfam GB, IFRC/ICRC and MSF are the key agencies setting the specifications for WASH
emergency materials. UNHCR specifications are used in some circumstances, e.g. for tents.
UNICEF is currently developing specifications based on Oxfam’s which are generic without any
reference to a particular supplier or manufacturer.
Many respondents would like to see the WASH cluster set the specifications which would give
clear guidance to all those involved in the supply of WASH materials. Caution is required
however as experience from the Inter Agency Technical Group 6 is that the aim should be
compatibility of equipment rather than standardisation. In addition both ICRC and MSF remain
outside the cluster system at present.
Who should pay?
A major issue for most is the question of who pays for stockpiles held. Payment is needed not
only for the purchase of the materials but also the storage (though UNHRD will store materials
for free) and for transport. Most donors when donating materials will pay not only for the
materials but also transport to the affected country and in some cases to the affected area
within that country. Some felt there was a need for a central transport fund. CERF not
considered a useful mechanism for the transport of emergency materials at short notice.
Who should purchase?
Procurement tends to be conducted by each individual organisation engaged in stockpiling. In
some circumstances and particularly in the case of some donors procurement is undertaken on
their behalf by UNHRD or LSU under direction from the donor. One donor utilises their national
Red Cross Society to procure items under contract. Long Term Agreements (LTAs) are seen as
a good idea and are said to have led to improvements in the quality of stock made available in
emergencies and should be retained as part of any strategy on emergency materials.
6
MSF, UNICEF, UNHCR, ACF, IFRC, ICRC, OXFAM, IRC and NCA (observer)
533561615, page 11 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Who should replenish stock?
Most stock is replenished directly by the owner of the stock. With some others most notably the
donor agencies who hold relatively small stockpiles and who have minimal human resource
capacity they ask UNHRD to replenish their stockpiles. One donor estimated a replenishment
time of 5-6 weeks, another said it takes 3 – 4 months to replenish their stock.
How should items be labelled
Logos
For some respondents organisational visibility is an objective and this partly explains why so
many engage in stockpiling materials, even relatively small quantities of a narrow range. For
these organisations clear and large logos on equipment may be essential.
For others visibility is not an issue and the absence of labels indicating the source of materials
is a positive aspect making such materials more acceptable. WFP have stopped labelling Rubb
Halls for instance which makes them more shareable with others.
The general opinion from most consulted was that putting organisational logos on items was
considered increasingly unnecessary except perhaps at the points of transport (branding of
pallets as put onto a plane).
Labelling
Items need to be labelled to clearly identify what they are independent of whether there is also a
logo. Some type of coding/reference marking is utilised by some to help track materials
following distribution to aid in the evaluation process.
Who should request items?
A series of mechanisms currently exist for requesting emergency materials. Many donor
stakeholders do not have any hard and fast rules about who they receive a request from. They
will respond to need wherever that request comes from. Others will only receive requests from
proven partners who have demonstrated in the past an ability to assess the situation properly
and have the capacity to utilise the goods effectively. The Canadians for example supply
materials through IFRC on receipt of a “mobilisation table” and the Government in the affected
area has to have made an appeal under UN resolution 46/182.
Lessons learned from the Tsunami as highlighted by the Fritz Institute would indicate that the
absence of a single point through which requests are made creates problems. As a result there
may be an absence of a co-ordinated response which results in inappropriate equipment being
sent, too much of one item or too little of another item. Some would like to see the WASH
cluster coordinator taking a major role in bringing together requests from implementers and
making requests to the holders of global stock.
Released by:
Those who own stock currently make the decision to release stock. Many would say this is fine
but on the other hand it may result in the release of all stock or stocks of a certain item with no
contingency stock left to deal with another acute emergency that might arise before there is time
to replenish that stock. Others suggest that there should be an overseer of global stock levels
who while not having the authority to release stock can at least advise the holders of stock to
hold some items in reserve.
Some owners of stock release items on receipt of a request made by UNOCHA, normally
through the humanitarian co-ordinator the ground. Irish Aid for example have a MoU with
UNOCHA on the procedure for this mechanism of requesting and releasing stock.
Released to:
At present donors release emergency materials to practically any party who requests such
items. Some owners of stock would be reluctant to donate stock to the Governments in affected
533561615, page 12 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
areas. This reluctance is based upon a sense that some Governments would not have high
standards of governance and therefore could not be held to account for proper use of the
materials. As with requests there seems to be few if any pre-conditions attached about whom
items can be released to. In general items are released to implementers who are well known
and have a track record with the owners of the stock.
Many NGOs or International Organisations only release stock to their own people on the ground
but very often these materials end up being shared with other organisations once there.
Transported and Delivered by:
Most emergency materials are transported and delivered by the owners of the stock, be they a
donor or aid agency. In some cases and perhaps increasingly so UNHRD are utilised to
transport and deliver emergency materials to the affected area. Both commercial and military
aircraft can be used to transport the materials. Some would query the value from a cost
perspective of engaging UNHRD to provide transport and delivery services. Other issues raised
around the delivery of emergency materials concerns the availability of temporary warehousing
on the ground and the problems of congestions at ports getting through customs procedures
etc.
Some suggested that for small scale disasters there should be looking towards the utilisation of
in-country stocks that could be transported by road provided they were within 2 days of the
affected area.
Accountability
The extent to which holders and users of emergency materials currently engage in the
monitoring and evaluation of those materials appears to be limited. Many do not have the time
or the resources to assess the impact of emergency materials on the humanitarian response.
Some donors felt reluctant to ask implementing partners for reports demonstrating how such
materials were utilised or felt it was near impossible to extract information from agencies who
are overstretched in responding to a crisis. Even when real time or post response evaluations
take place there seems to be little in the way of assessing how emergency materials contributed
or hindered in some cases the overall humanitarian objective.
Who should be held accountable where materials are part of a cluster response yielded a range
for views, from the Cluster lead through to end users being ultimately responsible.
Co-ordination and information sharing
As discovered there are many different players engaged in emergency materials and many hold
stockpiles (either physically and/or virtually). With so many stakeholders owning stockpiles the
question of co-ordination amongst players who hold stock at the global level has to be asked. If
would seem that many stakeholders do not speak with other stakeholders and at present there
is no forum for all the players to get together and plan the holding of stockpiles in a coherent
manner. It is understood that UNHRD meets users of its services on an annual basis but apart
from that there seems to be little co-ordination. Some suggested it would be senseless for the
WASH cluster to own a stockpile. “Why bother when so many others hold stockpiles” was one
response to that suggestion.
Other issues
Ownership of a stockpile brings with it certain legal responsibilities and one respondent warned
to be careful of setting up a central WASH stockpile as one has to ask who would take the legal
responsibility for the stockpile?
Another reason given for the maintenance of stockpiles is to try and limit the number and size of
ad hoc private donations of materials for disasters from the public.
533561615, page 13 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
At least two donors said that they did not hold virtual stock. One said they don’t regard virtual
stock as guaranteed available especially when many players have virtual stocking
arrangements, often with the same suppliers. They prefer to maintain contacts with suppliers
and procure depending upon what the market can provide at any point in time. The majority
however own both physical and virtual stockpiles.
The military was also mentioned as a source of stock as were the holders of stockpiles held for
national emergencies in donor countries. It was felt that the utilisation of military stocks should
be seen as a last resort. It was also felt that national emergency stockpiles while in theory a
potential source of emergency materials might in fact be inappropriate in the context of a
developing country affected by a sudden onset emergency.
Options
In Annex 10. Options, we highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of various
organisations (donors, UNICEF, individual agencies and consortiums) holding additional stock
for the cluster. These options were presented at the Copenhagen meeting.
533561615, page 14 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Recommended Strategy
In light of the findings of the mapping exercise outlined earlier the following recommendations
were put forward to the Steering Group in Copenhagen in relation to the emergency WASH
materials in order to increase the speed and effectiveness of a WASH emergency response.
The Steering Group considered these recommendations both in Copenhagen and again later in
Oxfam and their conclusions are given below in italics.
Global stocks
There appears to be no immediate justification for a significant increase in global stockpiles.
Greater challenges remain in terms of timely and accurate needs assessment and human
resource mobilisation.
The Steering Group accepted that challenges remained in needs assessments which should be
addressed in the next phase of the project. Human resource mobilisation is dealt with under a
separate cluster project.
Equitable access to equipment especially for smaller, less well-resourced agencies remains an
issue. Individual agencies that identify real needs for instance in supporting local partners in
disaster prone countries should be supported in approaches to donors for additional stocks.
The cluster must decide if that support would be conditional.
The Steering Group accepted both recommendations and decided that a small increase for
approximately 50,000 people in global stockpiles would be useful to ensure equitable sharing of
materials using the cluster mechanism. The consultants were asked to draft a Concept Paper
accordingly.
There are also areas where further research and development are required and these could
usefully be supported through the cluster mechanism with material purchased, deployed and
evaluated again possibly through the cluster even if implementation is assured by individual
agencies. Examples would be latrine and shower superstructure kits, household water
treatment and hygiene promotion kits.
The Steering Group initially accepted this recommendation and asked the consultants to include
further research and development in the concept paper but in the subsequent meeting in Oxford
decided that further research and development was better handled in other ongoing cluster
projects.
There may also be a role for donors to develop and stockpile specialised and expensive items
of equipment such as mobile water treatment plant.
Further work on scenario development and predictive analysis could also be useful.
UNICEF, as cluster lead agency, is currently reviewing the implications of being the agency of
last resort in regard to emergency materials. Depending on the outcome of this review, UNICEF
may need to increase WASH emergency materials stock levels above those currently planned.
A full range of items under each of the 4 sub-sectors and types listed under Table 1 is required.
Any imbalances identified in the range should be addressed through a broad consultative
process.
The Steering Group accepted this recommendation and asked the consultants to include
evaluations of material deployed and cluster reviews of those evaluations in the concept paper.
Donors should be encouraged to stock only NFI type items for distribution and use by the
affected populations. Specialist agencies like Oxfam could focus on the other 3 categories of
Infrastructure, Consumables and Equipment.
The Steering Group accepted this recommendation and asked the consultants to provide a list
of donors with whom to discuss further.
533561615, page 15 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
A physical stockpile will need to be held as the pre-positioning of physical stock is a key
element for quick/fast/reliable response to an emergency. Virtual stockpiles through LTAs etc.
have an important role.
Stockpiles are only part of supply chain management and should not be considered in isolation.
There may well be more cost efficient ways of ensuring that the right equipment is in the right
place at the right time than stockpiling.
The Steering Group accepted this recommendation and asked the consultants to include
support to material needs assessment in the concept paper. Human resource issues are being
dealt with under other ongoing projects.
Who stockpiles
A combination of donors, individual agencies and consortia is recommended rather than the
“cluster” as such.
UNICEF should initially at least stockpile WASH material as an individual agency rather than as
a cluster lead.
Although donors may not be the best option they do like to hold stockpiles and are a useful
resource to call upon for NFI type stock. The cluster should engage with donors to encourage
them to stock appropriate items.
The Steering Group endorsed this approach.
Where to stockpile
Decisions about where to stockpile should remain with stockholders, with stocks being held at
HQ, regional and national level as appropriate to each stockholder.
The Steering Group endorsed this approach.
How should stockpiles be organised?
The cluster should promote discussion of specifications of equipment with the aim of ensuring
first and foremost compatibility of items and comparability of descriptions. This should be done
through consultative process which may have to avoid being too closely associated with the
cluster in order to bring in MSF and ICRC. Standardisation of items should remain a desirable
long-term goal where consensus can be reached. Full use of existing specifications should be
made.
Donors should be encouraged to fund stockpiles held by individual agencies and consortiums
rather than hold stock themselves.
Individual agencies should procure, store, transport, clear and replenish their own stocks unless
they see the advantage in using common facilities such as UNHRD. Stock should be capable of
dispatch within 48/72 hours and cover needs for the first two months.
Items should be clearly labelled to identify what they are and assist in tracking. Logos showing
who owns or donated the items should be discouraged so far as possible. It may be necessary
to have the capacity to logo material at the last moment.
The WASH cluster coordinator or in their absence the Humanitarian Co-ordinator has an
important role in ensuring that needs are identified, and sufficient equipment is mobilised and
equitably distributed among partners in response to those needs. This is a facilitation and
process role rather than a directive or operational role.
Possibilities for the funding of transport, warehousing and replenishment of stocks in
emergencies which are clusterised needs to be explored and shared with cluster coordinators
and stockpiling organisations.
Accountability remains an issue which needs further discussion. The most practical solution at
present appears to be that the stockholder remains accountable for their own stock. The
533561615, page 16 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
degree to which the WASH cluster coordinator assumes responsibility for either accounting for
materials or ensuring that others do so, needs to be considered.
The Steering Group endorsed this approach while recognising the considerable challenges
involved.
Review of mapping framework
Considerable challenges were faced in the mapping exercise many of which would remain even
if the framework were adjusted. Challenges included:
 Two of the four largest non-donor WASH stockholders (MSF and ICRC) are outside the
Cluster.
 Identifying the best people to contact in any organisation takes time, as does actually
making contact, obtaining information, checking back to verify possible omissions or
inconsistencies etc.
 In any organisation, there may well be more than one person who has to be contacted. It
may be necessary to contact for instance technical, logistics and programme staff to get
a full picture.
 Organisations vary in their willingness to share detailed information even within the
Cluster
 Organisations vary in the quality of the information they have available even internally.
 Organisations maintain records in very different ways and this makes comparing and
combining such records to give an overview extremely difficult.
 Information varies rapidly and any mapping goes out of date almost immediately.
In view of the above and the experience of the LSU, the consultants would recommend that
alternative strategies are adopted to achieve a less detailed but more sustainable overview.
One possibility would be through meetings with key stockholders as suggested below.
Stockholders would be asked to provide information on the stock capacity they can commit to
against Table 1 in terms of population cover calculated on an agreed basis (Table 2). This
information should then be aggregated, and would allow organisations, donors and cluster
coordinators to have a rapid overview of stockpiles without being overwhelmed with detail which
would arguably always be out of date.
Within non-donor organisations, the primary point of contact was either technical or programme
staff. Establishing contact and engaging with logistics staff within organisations was not always
possible or easy for a range of reasons including:
 Unwillingness of programme and technical staff to involve logistics staff
 Suspicion on the part of logistics staff about the project which arguably sits astride
programming and logistics divide but is arguably programme driven
These difficulties reflect the different view points and inevitable tensions between programming
and logistics staff. The challenge in the future will be to ensure that any continuation of this
project involves both groups.
The cluster should remain in close conduct with LSU/OCHA in order to continue to learn from
each others mapping work7. Sharing of information needs further discussion.
The Steering Group recognised the immense challenges in undertaking any mapping and
concluded that further work should be left to LSU/OCHA.
7
LSU has just recruited a consultant to upgrade their mapping and there would be an
opportunity to work with this consultant in developing appropriate mapping strategies
533561615, page 17 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Identifying lessons that need to be learned, and then doing so
This is a major challenge. A more extensive literature search may help. Of far greater benefit
may well be to ensure that future evaluations do look at emergency materials issues in greater
detail and that lessons to be learned are shared with cluster coordinators through training and
workshops, and with a wider audience through the cluster and other networks which may
evolve. Follow up to ensure that lessons are indeed learned will be essential. The WASH
cluster could commission these evaluations or alternatively promote the inclusion of key
questions regarding emergency materials in others’ evaluations.
The Steering Group accepted this recommendation and asked the consultants to include the
evaluation of materials deployed in the concept paper.
Further work
1.
It is proposed that many of the key stakeholders identified through this research are
brought together at least on a once off basis and perhaps on a scheduled repeat basis to
discuss the proposed strategy put forward in this document including to collectively decide on
the quantities and range of equipment/materials necessary for a speedy and effective response
within WASH, to agree a system of requesting and receiving materials at the field and to
develop a system of incorporating as assessment of emergency materials into existing and
future real time or post disaster evaluations. This should lead to strengthened co-ordination
between all the key players in this area.
2.
As referred to by many people the question of human resources in the context of
emergency materials is a crucial one to answer. It is recommended that future work in relation to
emergency materials incorporate a component that identifies and addresses the human
resource problems. These may include recruitment of suitably qualified staff by those engaged
in the supply of emergency materials and may specifically address training needs for WASH
cluster co-ordinators who will play a vital role in ensuring such materials are mobilised and used
rapidly and effectively.
3.
While this study has focused on emergency materials held at the global level there is a
need to link this part of preparedness with national level and other regional level plans in
relation to emergency materials. Joining up all the levels of planning will help people to see the
bigger picture.
4.
There needs to be a permanent connection between logistics and WASH programme
people. Programme people need to see themselves as the beginning and end of the supply
chain and they can simply instruct logistics as to what they want, when and where etc.
The Steering Group asked the consultants to include elements of the recommended further
work in the concept paper as appropriate.
Framework for evaluating emergency materials
Questions to be posed are:
 Were the needs in relation to WASH emergency materials properly identified? If not, what
should have been done to improve the situation?
 Were the WASH materials appropriate to the context?
 Did the materials arrive within a reasonable timeframe?
 Were the materials utilised effectively? If not, what were the problems?
 What lessons need to be learned from this emergency response?
 What needs to be done to ensure that these lessons are learned?
The Steering Group asked the consultants to include this framework in the concept paper as
appropriate
533561615, page 18 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Final outputs
The final outputs agreed in Copenhagen are contained in:
1. Annex 4. Potential Donor Partners
2. Annex 5. List of Potential Agency Partners
3. Annex 6. Concept paper
4. Annex 9. Mapping results breakdown
533561615, page 19 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 1. Terms of Reference
For: WASH Cluster Emergency Stockpiling for Humanitarian Response –
Tim Foster, Niall Roche
Job Purpose:
Reporting to:
Duration:
Consultants:
To map existing global WASH contingency stocks and
recommendations for extra stock to be made available if necessary.
Andy Bastable, Oxfam GB
4 months – No of days specified
Tim Foster (Team Leader) and Niall Roche
make
Background
The WASH Cluster emergency stockpiling project is part of the strategy to increase the speed
and effectiveness of a WASH emergency response by having the right equipment available at
the right time for the agency on the ground. The Steering Group for this Project is Oxfam (also
managing), UNICEF, ICRC, WV and IFRC and the Peer Group is all the WASH Cluster
members.
Specific Activities:
Identify current best practice, synergies and limitations
1. Review approaches to ensuring ‘the right equipment in the right place at the right time’ by
other clusters – specifically, health, nutrition, shelter, education, CCCM and Logistics to
identify best practices in stockpiling
2. Meet and review the positions of the Shelter and Logistics clusters as well as WFP with
respect to the potential roles and responsibilities with respect to specifying, stocking and
storing WASH related NFIs
3. Review approaches to stockpiling of WASH materials of key donors, including their WASH
materials in the global mapping and overall analysis. (This would be an initial conversation
on their approaches to float idea of WAS and then to come back to them on content.)
Include but not limited to those donors included in the OCHA stockpile database. Examine
the potential for influencing the content and specifications of donor stockpiles
Develop mapping tool
4. Agree with the Steering Group a mechanism for mapping existing stockpiles of WASH
equipment for emergency use which are held by UN organisations, NGO’s, Governments
and agencies at HQ (Global), regional and country level (for country level only for significant
stocks) while liaising with other clusters.
 Propose a draft framework of what and how the mapping would be done to capture the
sectors capacity
 Define (& agree with the steering group) what is included as WASH materials and agree
definitions of equipment verses population coverage.
 When mapping global stocks include any agency use criteria/conditions (Can the WASH
Cluster use them?) and deployment time.
 Review current access to stockpiles of all actors and examine in particular determine how
and if the Global WASH cluster can access these stocks (particularly donor stocks)
533561615, page 20 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM

Review the framework as a potential long term monitoring tool and/or adjust if
appropriate to respond to this need
 Steering group to give feed-back
Conduct mapping of capacity
5. Carry out mapping of existing stockpiles as agreed
 Meet/discuss with both the logistics and WASH technical staff when consulting agencies
on the mapping of capacity in order to ensure a coherent approach as well as to examine
the possibility for sharing of LTAs (long term agreements for material purchase)
Presentation on findings and strategy
6. Presentation to the steering group of the findings and recommendations of the global
stockpiling analysis report in order gain agreement on the strategy for ensuring the right
WASH equipment at the right time in the right place.
On approval of the steering group of the strategy
7. Assuming stockpiling approach is accepted recommend quantity of equipment/materials
necessary
8. Develop detailed specifications for the WASH materials (making use of existing
specifications)
9. Develop budget estimates for proposed levels of WASH materials
With logistics and supply input and support of relevant agencies and clusters, develop a
proposed strategy of
10.Where equipment/material should be stored
11.How materials are stored for the global cluster will be labelled
12.Develop a criteria for release of WASH Cluster materials and how to distribute them at field
level
13.Stock control systems, information sharing and maintenance of updated information for
stocks stored for the global cluster
14.Budget estimates for the cost of storage of these stocks and planning figures for cost of
transport in a select number of scenarios
15.Recommend how costs of transport will be covered in the event of rapid deployment of
materials
16.Develop an agreed strategy for how storage costs will be covered in the medium to long term
17.Present findings (report and presentation) to the Steering Group/Peer Group
533561615, page 21 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 2. WASH emergency materials mapping framework
Not all these questions are appropriate for all organisations, and will be
rephrased or omitted based on information already received etc..
Range of WASH materials




Is Table (1) a useful and complete list of essential WASH related items?
How does the range of materials you stockpile compare with Table (1)?
o Do you seek to cover all four sub-sectors?
o Do you seek to cover all four type of material within each sub-sector?
o Do you concentrate on large camps or dispersed populations or both?
How does the list of items you stockpile compare with Table (2)?
o Do most of the WASH materials you stockpile appear on Table (2)?
Do you anticipate changes in the range of essential WASH related items due for example
to climate change or any other fundamental changes in emergencies?
Estimating capacity


Do you broadly measure your capacity in:
o Population coverage? And if so how do you calculate this?
o Minimum and maximum stocking levels of each item? And if so how do you
calculate these?
o Some other way?
In Table (2) we have attempted to calculate the total requirement for a sudden on-set
emergency affecting 500,000 people including consumables for the first 60 days.
o What percentage of this total requirement do you feel should be stockpiled
globally to ensure that the right equipment is in the right place, at the right time in
responding to such an emergency?
Stockpiles




Do you have physical stockpiles?
o Where are they located and how quickly can they be deployed?
Do you have virtual stockpiles with suppliers?
o Where are they located and how quickly can they be deployed?
Do you have plans to increase your stockpile in terms of range, quantity and location?
Do you have an up-to-date list of stockpiled WASH materials (physical and virtual) which
you would be prepared to share with us?
Access to stockpile

Are your physical stockpiled materials:
o Solely for your own organisation’s use?
o Predominantly for your own organisation’s use but could be shared with other
organisations and/or the WASH cluster?
o Available equally for your own and other organisations’ and/or the WASH cluster’s
use?
o Solely for use by other organisations and/or the Wash cluster?
533561615, page 22 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM



Does the same apply to your virtual stockpiles especially through LTAs?
What are the principle constraints to sharing?
o Capacity (you need all the material for your own programmes)?
o Policy?
o Logistical?
o Financial?
o Administrative
What sort of conditions apply to any sharing?
o MOU signed in advance or case by case agreement?
o Would prepayment or reimbursement always/generally/possibly/never be
required?
o Other
Strategic directions
Do you feel in recent emergences that there have been problems with getting the right WASH
equipment in the right place at the right time for:
 Your organisation?
 Other organisations?
 The sector as a whole?
If so:
 What was the nature of the problems, which organisations did it affect and at which stage
of the emergency?
 Would virtual or physical stockpiling of materials be part of the solution?
If so:
 At the global level, should we:
o Increase the range of items stockpiled globally
o Increase the quantity of items stockpiled globally
o Concentrate on sharing what we already have
o None of the above!
 Who should stockpile items?
o Individual agencies
 UN
 NGOs
 International organisations
 Donors
 Governments
o Groups of agencies
 UNHRD
 Other
o Global WASH cluster
o Other
 Where should we be stockpiling these items?
o Central
o Regional
533561615, page 23 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM

o National
o All of the above!
How should stockpiles be organised?
o How are items
 Specified (by whom?)
 Purchased (who pays?)
 Stored (by whom?)
 Labelled (logoless?)
 Requested (procedure from field)
 Released (authority)
 Transported and delivered? (who pays?)
 Accounted for? (distribution reports etc?)
533561615, page 24 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 3. Final outputs agreed with Steering Group
1. By 22nd May, develop a list of donors from among those we have already contacted who
could contribute to this stockpiling and categorise them in those who hold stock, donors
who might contribute with goods in kind and those who might fund.
2. By 22nd May, produce a first draft of a concept paper for stockpiling partnership
3. By 7th June, prepare a list of potential agencies to be partners in this stockpiling partnership.
So far we have Oxfam, IFRC, UNICEF and WVI. We would review our notes in order to
prepare this list but mot contact any new agencies or people.
4. By 7th June, provide further detail on Table 2 including quantities, specifications, volumes
and cost based on:
 Latest version of Oxfam, ICRC and MSF catalogues, we assume all three are or will be
made available to us by Andy Bastable, Paul Molinaro or Martijn Blansjaar;
 best guess estimates for any other items not in these catalogues
 Ajeet Oak’s work on specifications and quantities, we assume that UNICEF will authorise
Ajeet to share with us.
5. By 15th June, finalise report – this involves neatening up rather than major editing of the
report shared in Copenhagen.
The results of the stockpile mapping will be
disaggregated.
533561615, page 25 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 4. Potential Donor Partners
The following list is sub-divided into those donors it is felt are strong possibilities for partnership
on emergency materials and those who could be partners.
No.
Donor
Currently hold
WASH stock
Might contribute in
kind
Might
fund
Contact
names8
Strong possibilities
1
Canada9
Yes and plan a
specific WASH
stockpile in Dubai
Yes but currently
limited in donating
to IFRC, a UN
agency like UNICEF
or Canadian
registered NGO.
Yes
Joshua
Tabah
2
Ireland
Yes
Yes
Yes
Diarmuid
O’Leary
3
Norway10
Yes
Yes
Possibly
Astri
Endresen
4
United Kingdom Yes
Yes
Yes
Julian
Neale
Yes
Yes
Not known
Other possibilities
5
Australia11
6
ECHO12
7
Germany13
Not known
Not known
Not known
Not known
8
Italy
Yes, in Brindisi as a
partner to UNHRD
Yes, based on the
fact that goods in
kind are distributed
out of UNHRD
Not known
Not known
9
Japan14
Yes
Possibly.
Possibly
Hiroyuki
Yokoi
Yes
Not known
8
See Contact list circulated at Copenhagen meeting for details of known contacts.
Also interested in potentially being a niche supplier of certain WASH items. They have recently
increased substantially the quantity of materials stockpiled.
10 Evaluation of emergency preparedness system in October 07 recommended that Norway
increase the quantity of materials held in stockpiles. This recommendation is soon to be put to
the Minister responsible for consideration.
11 Information accessed solely from the AusAid and NZAid websites and UNOCHA register of
emergency stockpiles.
12 Mentioned also as a potential source of funding for stockpiles.
13 Informed that Germany is a holder of stockpiles within UNHRD but not able to confirm at this
point.
9
533561615, page 26 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
No.
Donor
Currently hold
WASH stock
Might contribute in
kind
Might
fund
Contact
names8
10
New Zealand11
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not known
11
Sweden15
Not known
Not known
Not known
Not known
12
Switzerland
Yes
Yes
Not known
Marc
Beutler
13
United States
Yes
Yes
Not known
Todd
Horne
14
Difficult to assess level of possibility to donate goods in kind or to fund from written response
received from JICA.
15 Did not participate in project and therefore it is difficult to know what their position might be.
533561615, page 27 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 5. List of Potential Agency Partners
No.
Agency
Comments
Contact names8
Strong possibilities
1
Oxfam GB
Andy Bastable
2
IFRC
Uli Jaspers
3
UNICEF
Jean McCluskey & Paul
Molinaro
4
Wold Vision International
As an observer
Rod Jackson
World Vision International
is member, see above
Loïc Cohen
Other possibilities
5
Supply Chain Consortium16
6
ACF
Souleymane Sow
7
IRC
Julian parker
8
UNHCR
Julia Schtivelman-Wat &
Svein Hapnes
9
Donors
See Annex 4. Potential Donor Partners
10
Private sector
Although not proposed at this point in time the private
sector may wish to participate in this partnership
16
Composed of World Vision International, Care International, Mercy Corps and CRS. Consider
once the SCC is up and running.
533561615, page 28 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 6. Concept paper
See separate document.
533561615, page 29 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 7. Contacts
Last Name
Company
Jean
Lapegue
ACF
Souleymane
Sow
ACF
Charity
Wanjiru
Bushproof
Jen
Hill
BushProof UK
First Names
Jenny
Department
Job Title
City
Country
Fax
Phone
Email
jlapegue@actioncontrela
faim.org
Emergency WASH
Coordinator
Paris Cedex
14
France
+ 33 (0)1
43
35 88 00
Madagas
car
Marketing
+ 33 (0)1 43
35 86 47
ssow@actioncontrelafai
m.org
+261
330511030
charity@bushproof.com
United
Kingdom
Business Manager
+44 (7757)
131 257
United
Kingdom
Butyl Products
CARE
International
Senior Logistics
Specialist, Emergency
Group
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Rumana
Kabir
Independent
consultant
Shelter Kit-NFI
Standard Compilation
Project for Shelter
Cluster
London
United
Kingdom
Elizabeth
Babister
CARE
International
UK
Shelter and
Reconstruction Senior
Specialist
London
United
Kingdom
Catherine
Bragg
CIDA
Humanitarian
Assistance
Director General
Canada
+819 (997)
2750
Joshua
Taba
CIDA
Natural Disaster
Response & NGO
Relations Group
Manager
Canada
+1 819 (994)
3945
Martin
Dalton
Concern
Worldwide
Ireland
+353 (1) 417
7700
Peter
Geets
CRS
Supplies and Logistics
Manager
Dublin
uk@bushproof.com
jenny@butylproducts.co.
uk
Cohen
Loïc
Mobile
Phone
+41 (22)
795 10 29
+44 (207)
934 9335
+41 (22) 795
10 37
+44 (207) 934
9416
+41 (79) 308
94 91
cohen@careinternational
.org
+44 (0) 77
987 31340
rumanakabir@FanBox.c
om
+44 (7825)
547 871
babister@careinternatio
nal.org
catherine_bragg@acdicida.gc.ca
+1 (613) 866
8934
joshua_tabah@acdicida.gc.ca
martin.dalton@concern.
net
pgeets@crsert.org
533561615, page 30 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Tanya
Axisa
DFID
CHASE OT
Humanitarian
Specialist (Section
Head)
Andrew
Gleadle
DFID
Operations Team of
CHASD
Section Head
CHASE Operations
Team
Team Leader,
Humanitarian
Preparedness and
Response Team,
Deputy Director
Ian
HowardWilliams
DFID
Jack
Jones
DFID
Humanitarian
Programme Officer
Julian
Neale
DFID
Logistics Manager
Water & Sanitation,
Livelihoods &
Natural Disasters,
Sector Support
Team
London
United
Kingdom
+44 (0) 20
7023 1219
+44 (0)
7901 553720
United
Kingdom
London
T-Axisa@dfid.gov.uk
a-gleadle@dfid.gov.uk
United
Kingdom
+44 (0) 20
7023 1475
+44 (0) 7901
558124
United
Kingdom
i-howardwilliams@dfid.gov.uk
j-jones@dfid.gov.uk
London
United
Kingdom
Nairobi
Kenya
nancy.balfour@ec.europ
a.eu
United
Kingdom
bob@evenproducts.com
Nancy
Balfour
ECHO
Bob
Rowland
Even Products
Marc
Beutler
Federal Dept.
of Foreign
Affairs
Swiss Agency for
Development Coordination
Logistics Co-ordinator
Switzerla
nd
Toni
Frisch
Federal Dept.
of Foreign
Affairs
Swiss Agency for
Development and
Co-operation
Delegate for
Humanitarian Aid and
Head SHA (Swiss
Humanitarian Aid
Stockpile)
Switzerla
nd
John
Bird
ICRC
Logistics Centre
Senior Purchaser
(Water & Habitat)
Alessandro
Giusti
ICRC
Robert
Mardini
ICRC
Head of the Water and
Habitat Unit,
Assistance Division
+44 (0) 20
7023 1461
+44 (7901)
553 703
+41 (31) 322
5340
+41 (76) 568
7911
j-neale@dfid.gov.uk
marc.beutler@deza.adm
in.ch
toni.frisch@deza.admin.
ch
Vernier
Switzerla
nd
+41 (0) 22
730 21 26
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (0) 22 730
3173
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22) 730
2934
533561615, page 31 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
+41 (0) 22 730
27 89
+41 (0) 79
244 64 17
jbird@icrc.org
agiusti@icrc.org
+41 (0) 79
251 93 08
rmardini@icrc.org
William
Carter
IFRC
Water & Sanitation
Unit - Health & Care
Department
Water & Sanitation
Officer
Geneva 19
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22)
7304218
+41 (78)
9207083
william.carter@ifrc.org
Robert
Fraser
IFRC
Health & Care
Department
Senior Officer - Water
& Sanitation
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22) 730
4416
+41 (0) 79
217 3303
robert.fraser@ifrc.org
Libertad
Gonzalez
IFRC
Water and
sanitation unit
Officer
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22) 730
4441
Ian
Heigh
IFRC
Logistics Advisor
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Uli
Jaspers
IFRC
Health and Care
Department
Head, Water and
Sanitation Unit
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22)
733 0395
+41 (22) 730
4472
IFRC
Logistics and
Resource
Mobilization
Department
Senior Procurement
Officer
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22)
730 4906
+41 (22) 730
4542
Logistics and
Resource
Mobilisation
Department
Head of Logistics
Switzerla
nd
+41 (33)
730 4906
+41 (22) 730
4263
Shreedip
Mashruwala
Armen
Petrosyan
IFRC
Graham
Saunders
IFRC
Miguel
Urquia
IFRC
Mark
Werdmüller
IFRC
John
Adams
Joseph
Head of Shelter
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Shelter Department
Senior Officer
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Shelter Department
Technical Advisor
Geneve
Switzerla
nd
Independent
consultant
St André le
Gaz
France
Ashmore
Independent
consultant
Brighton
United
Kingdom
Suzanne
Ferron
Independent
consultant
Timothy
Foster
Independent
consultant
Jeremy
Loveless
Independent
consultant
libertad.gonzalez@ifrc.or
g
+41 (79) 217
3316
Ian.Heigh@ifrc.org
+41 (79) 203
3339
uli.jaspers@ifrc.org
shreedip.mashruwala@if
rc.org
+41 (79) 217
3378
armen.petrosyan@ifrc.or
g
graham.saunders@ifrc.o
rg
+41 (022)
733 0395
+41 (22) 730
4562
+41 (79) 251
9219
miguel.urquia@ifrc.org
+41 (022) 730
4470
+41 (079)
425 72 44
Marc.Werdmuller@ifrc.or
g
john.adams@clubinternet.fr
+44 (0) 7813
672 060
joseph@josephashmore.
org
United
Kingdom
+44 (0) 1273
674798
+44 (0) 79
8501 1114
suzanne.ferron@gmail.c
om
Versoix
Switzerla
nd
+41 (0) 22 755
5564
+41 (0) 79
712 5243
tim@timfoster.org
Carouge
Switzerla
nd
533561615, page 32 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
jic100@aol.com
Ajeet
Oak
Independent
consultant
Niall
Roche
Independent
consultant
John
Cosgrave
Interworks
Europe
Lea
Matheson
IOM
Julian
Parker
IRC
Frank
Kirwan
Irish Aid
Diarmuid
O’Leary
Irish Aid
Hiroyuki
Yokoi
JICA
Paul
Edmondson
Medentech
Ltd.
Dee
Goluba
Mercy Corps
Gary
Waltenbaugh
Mercy Corps
Peter
Maes
MSF Belgium
Marco
Visser
MSF Holland
David
Weatherill
MSF Spain
Jorgensen
Norwegian
Emergency
Preparedness
Systems of
Innovation
Nina
Water and Env. Health
Specialist
CCCM Cluster contact
Pune
India
Co. Dublin
Ireland
Berrings
Ireland
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+91 (020)
25431430
+353 21
7332210
+91 (098)
220 23369
aoak@primoveindia.com
+353 (0) 87
94 66 288
roche.niall@gmail.com
+353 (021)
7332134
johncosgrave@gmail.co
m
lmatheson@iom.int
julian.parker@theirc.org
Emergency and
Recovery section
Ireland
Training Team,
Secretariat of Japan
Disaster Relief
Team
frank.kirwan@dfa.ie
First Secretary
Ireland
+353 (0) 61
774 051
diarmuid.oleary@dfa.ie
Programme Officer
Japan
+81 (3) 5352
5476
yokoi.hiroyuki@jica.go.jp
Ireland
+353 (53)
9160040
pedmondson@medente
ch.com
Technical Director
Wexford
Global Emergency
Operations
dgoluba@field.mercycor
ps.org
gwaltenbaugh@mercyco
rps.org
Brussels
Belgium
+32 (2) 474
7552
+32 (477) 77
97 17
peter.maes@msf.be
marco.visser@amsterda
m.msf.org
Barcelona
Business
Development and
Aid
Senior Adviser
Spain
Norway
533561615, page 33 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
+34 (933) 046
123
david.weatherill@barcel
ona.msf.org
nina.jorgensen@invanor.
no
Øyvind
Nordlie
Norwegian
Refugee
Council
Oslo
Norway
+47 (23) 10
98 01
+47 (23)
109912
John
Howard
Oxfam GB
Radley
United
Kingdom
+44
(01865)
312224
+44 (01865)
473821
Lucy
Russell
Oxfam GB
Programme Manager
(part time) Hygiene
Promotion Project
Oxford
United
Kingdom
Foyeke
Tolani
Oxfam GB
Health Advisor and PH
HIV and AIDS Focal
Point
Oxford
United
Kingdom
Kenny
Rae
Oxfam
America
Andy
Bastable
Oxfam GB
Public Health
Engineering
Coordinator
Oxford
United
Kingdom
+44 (0) 1865
473858
+44 (0) 77
9916 0461
abastable@Oxfam.org.u
k
Rick
Bauer
Oxfam GB
Public Health
Engineering Adviser
Oxford
United
Kingdom
+44 (0) 1865
473806
+44 (0) 791
998 6889
rbauer@oxfam.org.uk
Martijn
Blansjaar
Oxfam GB
Head of Logistics and
Supply
Oxford
United
Kingdom
+44 (1865)
473851
+44 (77)
8525 7139
mblansjaar@oxfam.org.
uk
Astri
Endresen
Permanent
Mission of
Norway
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22) 918
0407
+41 (0) 79
788 0407
astri.endresen@mfa.no
Greg
Allgood
Proctor and
Gamble
+1 (513) 622
3292
Naomi
Bourne
Deborah
Humanitarian
Department
+44 (01865)
473884
oyvind.nordlie@nrc.no
+44 (0) 7732
673 568
jhoward@oxfam.org.uk
+44 (0)
7711918346
lurussell@oxfam.org.uk
+44 (0)
7817180782
FTolani@oxfam.org.uk
krae@OxfamAmerica.or
g
Humanitarian
Department
Emergency Response
Officer
Children’s Safe
Drinking Water
Director
Cinncinati
USA
Save the
Children
Logistician
London
United
Kingdom
Haines
Save the
Children UK
Education Cluster
contact
London
United
Kingdom
Tom
Corsellis
Shelter Centre
Co-Director
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Antonella
Vitale
Shetler Centre
Co-Director
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Daniel
Endres
UNHCR
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
EPRS
allgood.gs@pg.com
n.bourne@savethechildr
en.org.uk
+41 (0) 22
733 03 95
+44 (0) 207
012 6562
+44 (0) 777
0398 166
d.haines@savethechildr
en.org.uk
+41 (0) 22 730
42 88
+41 (0) 79
517 05 93
tom@sheltercentre.org
antonella@sheltercentre.
org
+41 (022)
7397301
533561615, page 34 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
+41 (022)
7398459
endres@unhcr.org
Svein
Hapnes
UNHCR
Manoucher
Lolachi
UNHCR
Roberta
Montevecchi
Jane Wanjiru
+41 (0) 79
249 3462
Logistics Officer
Budapest
Hungary
Senior Physical
Planner
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
UNHCR
Programme Officer
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Muigai
UNHCR
Senior Policy Officer,
Division of Operational
Services
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (0) 22
739 7328
+41 (0) 22 739
8275
+41 (0) 79
282 3589
muigaij@unhcr.org
Julia
SchtivelmanWatt
UNHCR
Chief
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22)
739 7304
+41 (22) 739
8541
+41 (0) 79
217 3164
schtivel@unhcr.org
Karl
Steinacker
UNHCR
Guiseppe
Saba
UNHRD
Franck
Bouvet
UNICEF
Dermot
Carty
UNICEF
Kenneth
Chulley
UNICEF
Bruce
Cogill
UNICEF
Therese
Dooley
UNICEF
William
Fellows
UNICEF
Kathryn
Harries
UNICEF
Technical Support
Section
Emergency
Preparedness and
Response Section
lolachi@unhcr.org
+41 (0) 22 739
8694
montevr@unhcr.org
steinack@unhcr.org
+39 (0831)
506660
+39 (348)
609 9424
giuseppe.saba@wfp.org
+221 (33) 869
58 66
+221 (77)
450 42 28
fbouvet@unicef.org
Brindisi
Italy
Spécialiste Eau,
Hygiène,
Assainissement
Dakar Yoff
Sénegal
Chief, Interagency &
Humanitarian
Partnership Section
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
kchulley@unicef.org
United
States of
America
bcogill@unicef.org
New York
United
States of
America
tdooley@unicef.org
Kathmandu
Nepal
wfellows@unicef.org
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Nutrition Cluster
contact
South Asia Regional
Adviser
Global WASH
Cluster Advocacy
and Support Team
+41 (0) 22 739
8727
Switzerla
nd
CCCM Cluster contact
EMOPS
+41 (0) 22
739 7371
hapnes@unhcr.org
+221 (33)
820 89 64
+41 (0) 22 909
5629
+41 (0) 22
909 5902
533561615, page 35 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
+41 (0) 22 909
5834
dcarty@unicef.org
kharries@unicef.org
Richard
Luff
UNICEF
South Asia region
Gerard
Magbity
UNICEF
Jean
McCluskey
UNICEF
Paul
Molinaro
UNICEF
Supply Division
Mei Ling
Wong
Nylander
UNICEF
Supply Division
WES officer and
regional WASH cluster
lead
Kathmandu
Nepal
+977 (1)
4417082 x 268
Copenhagen
Denmark
+45 (28)
506897
WES Emergencies
Adviser, WASH
Cluster Co-ordination
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Logistics Officer,
Emergency
Copenhagen
Denmark
Copenhagen
Denmark
+45 (35)
250283
+45 (35)
273204
mnylander@unicef.org
Panama
Panama
+507 (317)
0258
+507 (301)
7435
cosorio@unicef.org
Islamabad
Pakistan
Regional Advisor in
Disaster Reduction,
Water and Sanitation
Initiative
Claudio
Osorio Urzúa
UNICEF
TACRO
Andrew
Parker
UNICEF
James
ShepherdBarron
UNICEF
WASH Cluster
Coordinator
Dhaka
Banglade
sh
New York
+41 (022)
909 59 02
+977 (98510)
96804
rluff@unicef.org
gmagbity@unicef.org
+41 (022) 909
56 16
+41 (79) 212
73 77
jmccluskey@unicef.org
+45 35273416
+45 (23)
327457
pmolinaro@unicef.org
+92 (300)
8565186
acparker@unicef.org
+880 (2)
933.6701-10
+880 (1711)
820.790
jshepherdbarron@unicef
.org
United
States of
America
+1 (212) 326
7556
+1 (917) 605
2218
psherlock@unicef.org
+1 (917) 650
7815
nwillson@unicef.org
Paul
Sherlock
UNICEF
Senior Adviser,
Emergencies, IASC
WASH Cluster
Coordinator
Nick
Willson
UNICEF
WES Senior
Programme Officer
(WASH Emergency
New York
United
States of
America
+1 (212) 326
7151
Erik
Pedersen
UNICEF
Supply Division,
Water, Sanitation &
Education Centre
Technical Officer
Copenhagen
Denmark
+45 (3527)
3115
epedersen@unicef.org
Virginie
Bohl
UNOCHA
Logistics Support
Unit
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
+41 (0) 22 917
17 92
bohl@un.org
Adriana
CarvalhoFriedheim
UNOCHA
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Isabelle
de MuyserBoucher
UNOCHA
Geneva
Switzerla
nd
Logistics Support
Unit
Chief
+41 (0) 22
917 00 23
533561615, page 36 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
carvalhofriedheim@un.org
+41 (22) 917
3290
demuyserboucher@un.org
Todd
Horne
USAID
Logistics Officers
Matthew
Hollingworth
WFP
Logistics Cluster
contact
Tim
Smith
WFP
Former Logistic
Cluster contact
Global Health
Cluster Support
Hub, Health Action
in Crises
Erin
Kenney
WHO
Health Cluster contact
Jon
Carver
WHO/HAC
Head Logistician
Jules
Hendrikus
Pieters
WHO/HAC
Operations Manager
Mahfoud
Bouhembel
World Food
Programme
Rod
Jackson
World Vision
International
George
Fenton
World Vision
International
Global Logistics
Cluster Support Cell
United
States of
America
Rome
Geneva
matthew.hollingworth@w
fp.org
Italy
Italy
+39 (06) 651
32413
Switzerla
nd
+41 (22) 791
2448
+39 (340)
058 7675
tim.smith@wfp.org
kenneye@who.int
United
Kingdom
Roma
Associate Supply
Chain Director
thorne@usaid.gov
carverj@who.int
Water & Sanitation
Specialist
Humanitarian and
Emergency Affairs
+1 (202) 712
0234
Guiting
Power
PietersJ@who.int
Italy
+39 (066513)
3521
+39 (347)
280 4046
Mahfoud.Bouhembel@w
fp.org
Australia
+61 (0) 7
38224783
+61 (0) 413
701044
Rod_Jackson@wvi.org
United
Kingdom
+44 (1451)
851979
+44 (7889)
641907
george_fenton@wvi.org
533561615, page 37 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 8. Mapping results summary17
Sub-sectors
A. Water
supply
 Mass WASH
Household WASH 
Infrastructure built by or
under the supervision of
the team
Consumables used by or
under the supervision of
the team
Equipment used by or under the
supervision of the team
Items for distribution to and
use by the affected
population
a. Equipment to develop
sources, pump, store, treat,
transport & distribute both
ground & surface water to
public water points.
Including spare parts
a. Chemicals for water
quality testing & treatment in
water supply systems
a. Equipment to test water quality
a. Containers for the transport
& home-based storage of
water
B. Sanitation
including
excreta
disposal &
solid waste
management
Well drilling
equipment
1,284,000
b. Chemicals &/or equipment
for home-based water
treatment
658,00018
1,166,000
Excluded: Staff
offices,
accommodation,
vehicles and items
below
658,00020
179,00019
x. Tools to construct, clean or repair water supply systems/wells 21
a. Latrine slabs for both dry
& pour-flushed systems
Material or kit for latrine
superstructure including
sand bags
a. Latrine slab making kits for both
dry & pour-flushed systems
1,147,00022
245,00023
a. Water containers for anal
cleansing
b. Bedpans
Latrine pit lining
material except
sand bags
Body bags
024
x. Tools to dig latrine pits in both hard & soft ground21
17
Figures are in population cover based on information received from donors, IFRC, ICRC, Oxfam, SCC, UNHCR, WVI & MSF but does not include UNICEF SD stockpile
currently under discussion.
18 Estimate based on capacity of larger operational agencies
19 Appears to be increasing capacity, some due to push of suppliers but also research demonstrating impact of point of use treatment
20 Estimate based on capacity of larger operational agencies
21 Tools were not mapped given wide range of individual items and kits
22 Latrine slabs mapped, superstructure for latrines and showers currently covered by plastic sheeting which was not mapped
23 Estimate based on capacity of larger operational agencies
24 HP group working on recommendations
533561615, page 38 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
C. Vector
control
including
surface water
drainage
a. Chemicals for vector
control
165,00025
165,000
D. Hygiene
a. Backpack sprayers or similar for
chemicals
b. Safety equipment for operators
a. Material or kit for shower
superstructure
26
a. Impregnated bed nets
1,545,000
x. Tools to dig drains for surface water drainage21
a. Hygiene promotion kits
a. Water containers for hand
washing
b. Soap
28,00027
c. Multipurpose cloth
d. Other hygiene items
(-)22
(-)28
25
83,00029
Estimate based on capacity of larger operational agencies
Estimate based on capacity of larger operational agencies
27 Soap only, water containers for hand washing not mapped separately
28 Currently much of the necessary equipment appears to be covered by non HP specific kits which were not mapped. HP group working on recommendations
29 Hygiene kits mapped, HP group working on recommendations
26
533561615, page 39 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Annex 9. Mapping results breakdown
Organisation and
sub-sectors30
Water supply
IFRC
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
Water supply
ICRC
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
Water supply
Donors
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
Water supply
MSF
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
Water supply
Oxfam
30
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
Infrastructure built by or under
the supervision of the team
318,000
27%
180,000
16%
200,000
17%
50,000
4%
195,000
17%
13,000
1%
60,000
5%
15,000
1%
313,000
27%
809,000
71%
-
Consumables used by or under
the supervision of the team
318,000
48%
100,000
61%
200,000
30%
50,000
30%
0%
0%
60,000
9%
15,000
9%
0%
0%
-
Equipment used by or under
the supervision of the team
318,000
48%
180,000
73%
100,000
61%
200,000
30%
50,000
20%
50,000
30%
0%
0%
0%
60,000
9%
15,000
6%
15,000
9%
0%
0%
0%
-
Refer to summary table for descriptions
533561615, page 40 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Items for distribution to and
use by the affected population
144,000
11%
70,000
39%
835,000
54%
38,000
46%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
350,000
27%
9,000
5%
30,000
2%
10,000
36%
5,000
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50,000
4%
100,000
56%
100,000
6%
9,000
32%
Water supply
SCC
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
Water supply
UNHCR
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
Water supply
WVI
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
Water supply
Total
Sanitation
Vector control
Hygiene
80,000
80,000
1,166,000
1,147,000
-
7%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
80,000
658,000
165,000
-
12%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
533561615, page 41 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
80,000
658,000
245,000
165,000
-
12%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
80,000
80,000
9,000
40,000
500,000
500,000
160,000
1,284,000
179,000
1,545,000
28,000
83,000
0%
6%
0%
5%
32%
48%
39%
0%
32%
0%
0%
12%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Annex 10. Options
These options were requested prior to the Steering Group meeting in Copenhagen and are included here for completeness. At that meeting it
was decided to concentrate on the preferred option and recommendations.
533561615, page 42 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Option A – The Donor Option - In this option the owners of the stockpile are the donors
Owned by
Type of Stock
(Physical /
Virtual)
Range of items
Specifications
set by
The donor agency (eg. CIDA, Irish Aid)
Physical stockpiles only
Each donor stocking a range of items
under each of the 4 sub-sectors and
types listed under Table 1.
The WASH cluster
Paid for by
The donor agency
Procured by
The donor or UNHRD on their behalf
Stored at
Donor central stores in donor country
and donor hubs at regional locations
Type of labelling
No labelling of individual items but
there is labelling during transport
Requested by
Donor offices or teams in the affected
area
Released by
Donor headquarters (eg. Ottawa,
Limerick)
Any agency/organisation who makes a
direct request to the donor
Released to
Transported and
Delivered by
Stock
replenished by
Monitored and
Evaluated by
The donor agency utilising their own
logistical arrangements.
The donor agency
The donor agency post emergency (3
months from declaration of emergency
for instance)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Physical stockpiles only guarantees access
to stock immediately provided maximum
stock is available physically.
Greater independence for one donor to
respond
Runs the risk of only a limited stock available if a previous
draw down on the stock.
The WASH cluster ought to know the
appropriate specifications for emergency
response.
Possible security of funding in procuring
and maintaining a stockpile.
The donor should have the money to
procure
Easier for donor to monitor stock in home
country. Easier for donor to gain positive
publicity if moved from home country.
Absence of labels makes the items more
acceptable to those who may receive the
items.
There should be good communication links
between donor offices at home and in the
affected area.
Donor HQs should know what they have in
stock and what they can release.
Agency can make a direct request based
upon need without any pre-conditions
Donors again should have the financial
resources to pay for transport and delivery.
The donor has the money to replenish
stock immediately.
Donor can capture their own lessons and
learn from their mistakes
Responsibility for achieving a minimum stock level of a
certain item is more dispersed amongst a range of actors
Possible procurement of inappropriate items or items of
the wrong specification if WASH specs are not followed.
Possibly expensive to store in home country. Possibly too
removed from potentially affected areas thus increasing
transport costs
Donor may lose some profile/visibility due to the absence
of labelling.
Donor team on the ground may not be in close coordination with implementers thus inappropriate requests
are made
May be done outside of expected normal co-ordination
mechanisms resulting in possible oversupply of certain
items or supply of inappropriate items.
Post emergency evaluation might not capture many of the
problems of the time. May be too late to change practice in
that emergency. Donor may not have capacity to
undertake.
533561615, page 43 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
General Advantages and Disadvantages of the Donor Option
Advantages
 The primary advantage would appear to the financial sustainability donors can bring to the procurement, maintenance and deployment
of emergency relief items.
Disadvantages
 Donors are often disconnected from events on the ground and being so removed makes it more difficult for them to monitor and
evaluate the impact their materials might have.
533561615, page 44 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
WASH emergency materials project final report rev 03 - In this option the owners of the stockpile are UNICEF
Owned by
UNICEF on behalf of the WASH cluster
Type of Stock
(Physical / Virtual)
A combination of physical and virtual
stocks. Virtual stocks held with suppliers
holding LTAs with UNICEF.
Range of Stock
Paid for by
A full range of items under each of the 4
sub-sectors and types listed under Table
1.
UNICEF using Oxfam specifications to
develop non-supplier specific
specifications
UNICEF
Procured by
UNICEF
Stored at
UNHCR Supplies Division in Copenhagen
and in regional stores and/or utilising the
UNHRD hubs in 5 regional locations
globally.
Labelling restricted to information required
for identification and field tracking plus
possible use of Cluster logo
The WASH cluster on the ground through
the WASH cluster co-ordinator
Specifications set by
Type of labelling
Requested by
Released by
Released to
UNICEF as lead agency for the WASH
cluster
UNICEF’s implementing partners only
Transported and
Delivered by
Stock replenished by
UNICEF utilising their own logistics
capacity
UNICEF
Advantages
As cluster lead UNICEF ought to have a
stronger sense of responsibility for ensuring
stockpiles can meet the needs
Holding of virtual stocks may help to reduce
storage costs of physical stocks and spreads
burden of stockpiling to private sector also.
In theory can meet all the WASH needs of
any emergency from one stockpile
Disadvantages
May create a sense of power within UNICEF
and/or a sense of powerlessness amongst
partners who may be vying to receive stock.
Places significant responsibility and potential costs
on suppliers to maintain virtual stocks which they
may or may not do. The risk is that such virtual
stocks will not exist when called upon!
UNICEF may not have the technical skills to
maintain equipment parts of the range
Such specs are widely recognised as the
industry norm
New technologies may be delayed due to time lag
in setting specifications?
Where can they access the funding to do so
on behalf of the cluster?
More likely to procure stock that meets the
industry standards or specifications?
If in Copenhagen the supplies division can
easily maintain a physical check of stock.
If in the HRD hubs has the advantage of free
storage
If paid for by UNICEF perhaps they will try to exert
some control over the release of such stock
Can UNICEF logistics scale up to procure
sufficient quantities of stock on time?
If stored in the HRD hubs UNICEF may have less
control over the conditions of storage
The WASH cluster co-ordinator should be
the person in the best position to determine
what the emergency WASH materials needs
are!
A WASH cluster co-ordinator may not be in place
during the critical first 48 – 72 hours
Pre-qualified implementing partners are
better trusted to deliver and utilise the
emergency materials
Does UNICEF have the capacity to do this?
Will more likely procure to WASH standards
and specifications
533561615, page 45 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
UNICEF as the sole holder of the WASH cluster
stock may have too much power?
May exclude smaller and more localised
implementers who have capacity to deliver but not
the necessary pre-qualifications to receive stock
from UNICEF.
Is this too much responsibility to be placed on one
player?
Perhaps too much responsibility for one player to
bear. If they fail they will fail spectacularly!
Mapping Done by
UNICEF
UNICEF can control the mapping of WASH
items
What is mapped
Stock commitments only
Monitored and
Evaluated by
An independent third party contracted by
the WASH cluster
Easier to do and only outlines the maximum
stock expected to be held by the WASH
sector
Allows for independent assessment and
capturing of lessons to be learned.
533561615, page 46 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
May undermine role of OCHA to map a range of
emergency materials across the sectors.
May not be resource efficient if each sector
engages in the mapping of their own stockpiles
Doesn’t record what is actually available at a given
point in time if some stock is in rotation.
Another aspect to be managed by the WASH
cluster. Does the cluster have the HR capacity to
manage effectively?
Option C – The Collective Agencies Option - In this option each individual operational agency owns their own stockpile.
Owned by
Type of Stock (Physical /
Virtual)
Each individual agency
A mix of physical and
virtual stock
Advantages
Holding of virtual stocks may help to reduce
storage costs of physical stocks and spreads
burden of stockpiling to private sector also.
Range of items
Mainly NFIs but some
agencies
(ie
Oxfam)
specialising
in
the
infrastructure, consumables
and equipment areas.
Each individual agency
Specialist agencies deal with specialist stock
items which they have the resources to procure
and utilise correctly. Non specialist agencies
stock distribution type items only
Each individual agency
through
their
normal
funding mechanisms be it
donor funding or agency
funds
The individual agency
Independence of funding and therefore not
dependent on a third party to fund
Specifications set by
Paid for by
Procured by
Stored at
Agency warehouses in
home
country
and/or
regional centres
All items labelled with the
individual agency logo
Agency responsibles in the
field locations
Type of labelling
Requested by
Agency Headquarters –
Head
of
Emergencies
person
Agency representative on
the ground
Released by
Released to
Transported
Delivered by
and
By the individual agency
Each agency can take full responsibility for the
specifications adopted.
Disadvantages
Places significant responsibility and potential costs on
suppliers to maintain virtual stocks which they may or
may not do. The risk is that such virtual stocks will not
exist when called upon!
May result in overstocking of NFIs with so many
different actors holding stockpiles. May put a strain on
small number of specialist agencies to be present at
all emergencies.
Runs the risks of having different specifications for the
same item and therefore a lack of appropriateness or
compatibility
Sustainability of funding may be a problem.
Agency has a degree of control over
procurement
standards
and
material
specifications
Greater sense of control over stock especially
stock that may need to be maintained.
Isolated procurement by individual agencies removes
the potential to gain economies of scale and greatly
influence suppliers.
Potentially higher storage costs
Enhances visibility at all stages for the agency
Might limit the acceptability of stock for use by other
agencies on the ground.
May not be requested in co-ordination with other
implementers resulting in over supply or stock or
inappropriate stock being delivered
Independence of decision making to make
requests for stock
Lines of communication are all within the
agency and in theory should be easier.
Agency representative on the ground can best
assess how to utilise the stock, either use
themselves or share with whoever they wish to
share with
Agency has control over the transport and
delivery of items
Potentially done outside the formal co-ordination
mechanism on the ground and therefore not in
keeping with the overall needs assessment and
response.
Agency may lack the ability to share transport with
other agencies if stock is stored in home locations and
not in a communal facility.
533561615, page 47 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Stock replenished by
The individual agency
Mapping done by
The individual agency
What is mapped
Actual stock in the agency
warehouse or warehouses
Agency knows precisely what it has available to
dispatch at any given point in time
Mainstreaming
(eg
Gender,
HIV/AIDS,
Disability etc.
Monitored and Evaluated
by
Not done
Helps to keep things simple.
By the individual agency
Lessons identified are more likely to learned
and acted upon if self identified
Agency has control over the procurement
process and specifications of materials.
Agency will know with a greater degree of
certainty what they have in stock and where
Access to funding to do so may be a problem.
If such information is not shared with the wider WASH
community it makes it difficult to assess globally what
is available and where.
Becomes more difficult to do fi stock is spread across
a number of different locations as physical stock and
virtual stock (which may be much more difficult to
quantify)
Stock may not meet the needs of particularly
vulnerable groups such as children or the disabled.
Lesson identified may not be shared openly with the
wider aid community (if negative) for fear of negative
publicity and adverse donor reaction.
533561615, page 48 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Option D – The Consortium Option In this option each individual agency within the consortium holds stock on behalf of all
members.
Owned by
Individual agencies within a
consortium bound by a MoU
Physical stock plus increase in stock
held by pre-qualified suppliers
Advantages
Disadvantages
Good balance of risk between the agencies
holding the physical stockpiles and virtual
stockpiles held by pre-qualified suppliers
Limited to items for distribution to and
use by those affected by emergency
under all the sub-sectors
Each individual agency
Easy items to store and maintain
Physical stockpiles run the risk of not being
utilised if demand is not sufficient for items
(NFIs) that are easily stockpiled by numerous
emergency response players
Won’t fulfil all the watsan needs in most
emergencies.
Paid for by
Donor funding assuming donors are
agreeable and/or agency funds.
Sustainable donor funding for stockpiles may
free up other funds for other aspects of
emergency preparedness
Procured by
Each individual agency
Stored at
UNHRD hubs except Brindisi which is
considered too remote from areas of
predicted emergency in the future.
No labelling of any sort
Type of Stock (Physical /
Virtual)
Range of Stock
Specifications set by
Type of labelling
Requested by
Any member of the consortium on the
ground in the affected area
Released by
Each consortium member who holds
the stock requested
Any consortium member on the
ground who makes a “valid” request
By the individual consortium member
who holds the stock
Released to
Transported and
Delivered by
Stock replenished by
By the individual consortium member
who purchases new stock.
Alternative is to receive goods in kind
from a donor for example
Each agency can take full responsibility for
the specifications adopted.
Storage is free
Makes stock more attractive to all players who
may wish to receive it
If requested from consortium members there
is more likely to be a degree of trust that the
request is based upon a solid needs
assessment and capacity exists to deliver
goods effectively
Authority to release is within the control of the
stockholder
Consortium member has control over the
stock from UNHRD warehouse to point of
delivery
Consortium member retains control over
identification of supplier, procurement rules
etc.
Removes the financial burden and human
533561615, page 49 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM
Runs the risks of having different
specifications for the same item and therefore
a lack of appropriateness or compatibility
Donor attitudes may change on stockpiling if
over reliant on donors to fund such stockpiles.
Perhaps each agency will have different
procurement rules causing
Stock is less accessible for consortium
members to monitor. May be less accessible
simply due to distance.
Loss of visibility for those who supply the
stock
May not be linked into the wider co-ordination
mechanism assessing overall needs and
capacity to deliver on the ground.
Transport costs are likely to be high and may
draw heavily on consortium members financial
resources to pay for transport.
If stock level held by agency is relatively small
one may lose out on economies of scale if
replacing a small quantity of stock.
Goods received in kind may not conform with
Mapping Done by
The agencies themselves
What is mapped
Committed stock to be held by each
agency within the consortium
Mainstreaming (eg
Gender, HIV/AIDS,
Disability etc.)
Monitored and Evaluated
by
In accordance with each individual
agencies policiy
By the consortium as a collective unit
resource requirements of purchasing new
stock.
They will have confidence in knowing what
stock is available to them as a group
Easier to do and only outlines the maximum
stock expected to be held by the Supply
Chain Consortium
May help to ensure procured stock meet the
needs of especially vulnerable groups such as
the disabled.
Easier to set Terms of Reference and define
amount of resources put into M+E.
standards and/specifications of the agency
May not link and inform the wider
humanitarian community on stock levels held
Doesn’t record what is actually available at a
given point in time if some stock is in rotation.
Perhaps complicates the number of
specifications demanded of stock and place
unnecessary demands on stockpiles
Will lessons captured be shared or picked up
by the wider WASH humanitarian community
Note: The intention is that each agency will develop their own stocks (separate to the consortium stocks) which will complement the
consortium stocks and ensure all sub-sectors and categories are covered.
533561615, page 50 of 54, printed 15/02/2016 6:00 PM