2013
RRT-Retreat
Consultant & Facilitator,
Rekha Das
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 –
MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
This report summarises the main agreements and recommendations from the inter-cluster Retreat
held in June 2013. It points to the next steps needed to develop more harmonized Rapid Response
Teams across Education, Child Protection, WASH, Gender-Based Violence & Nutrition.
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Introduction
For the first time since the conception of the Rapid Response Teams (RRT) an inter-cluster Retreat
was held on 19th to 21st June 2013. The Retreat brought together RRT members from all UNICEF
clusters and Areas of Responsibility, Education, Nutrition, WASH, Child-Protection & Gender Based
Violence, as well as the Global Cluster Coordination Unit (GCCU) and a selection of partners hosting
the RRTs. As one of the donors funding the RRTs and as part of their evaluation process,
representatives from ECHO also took part in the retreat.
The overall objective of the three day retreat was to develop a coherent approach and enhance
collaboration within the RRTs across the five UNICEF (co)-led Clusters and Areas of Responsibility
(AoRs), in collaboration with the RRT hosting partners, while maintaining cluster specificity as
needed – in other words: ‘Improve synergies among AORs and clusters, have RRTs get to know each
other and work together’1.
More specifically the objectives were to kick start a process for:2
 Prioritization and alignment of countries that receive RRT support; clarify criteria and
processes for deployment (including roles and responsibilities of the different actors, how to
maximize synergies, coordinated deployments including team deployments, ToRs, predeployment orientation, team approaches, mechanisms for feedback and support,
debriefing/reporting, practical tips, etc.);
 Accountability for follow up of RRT recommendations at country level, including
replacement strategy if needed and potential gaps;
 Identify and agree the various communication and reporting mechanisms between RRTs as a
team, and between RRTs and Inter-Cluster Coordinators Unit (ICCU)/ Global Cluster
Coordinators (GCC)s;
 Identify orientation and capacity development needs of RRTs, and system for updating RRT
members on key developments (UNICEF, Clusters, Transformative Agenda);
 Foster team building of RRT members, and strengthen the relationship with the ICCU/GCC
and RRT hosting partners;
 Update on the latest developments regards Transformative Agenda;
 Address selected thematic issues in greater depth, e.g. gender marker, Information
Management, inter-cluster coordination, Cluster Coordination capacity development
strategy.
This report summarises the preparations leading up to the retreat, the main issues of discussion
during the retreat including concerns and questions raised along the way. It also lists the
recommendations which emerged from each session. The full list was presented on the last day of
the retreat and discussed/agreed in plenary.
The annexes to this report include: the final agenda, the participants list, the Concept Note for the
Retreat as well as the TOR for the consultancy.
1
2
Introduction by UNICEF inter-cluster coordinator on 19th June 2013
RRT Retreat Draft Concept Note, April 2013
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
2
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
2. The Rapid Response Teams3
The Cluster/AoR Rapid Response Teams provide rapidly deployable coordination and technical
capacity (including needs assessment and information management capacity) in humanitarian
situations. The UNICEF led and co-led Clusters/AoRs currently have different numbers of RRT
members 4 however the aim within EMOPS is to have five RRT members per Cluster/AoR.
Fundamental elements in common across the Clusters/AoRs, include the following:




RRTs are part of the core team of the Clusters/AoRs;
RRT members are dedicated to provide coordination support;
RRT members are immediately deployable; no identification of a suitable candidate from a
roster is required (as is the case with the Standby Partner rosters);
RRT members have extensive experience and a strong knowledge of their respective sectors;
thus field support provided is often beyond what Standby Partner roster candidates can
offer.
With some nuances across Clusters/AORs, RRT support is being prioritized based on the level of the
emergency, with priority given to large scale and L3 emergencies and in countries where the Cluster
approach has just been activated and there is a need to establish a coordination system.
The second priority is given to countries with already established clusters but they have severe
capacity gaps and/or there are identified needs to strengthen coordination. In countries facing an
imminent and/or anticipated large scale crisis, as has been the case recently in Pakistan and the
Sahel region, the RRT has been deployed to build capacity and strengthen preparedness.
The RRTs are deployed by the Global clusters, either through a steering committee mechanism or by
a pre-agreed decision making system. All RRT decisions are made within a 48 hour turn around
period to avoid any un-necessary delays.
The partnership model for the RRTs varies between clusters/AoRs with some using existing standby
arrangement or bringing the partner organisations own resources (Child Protection, Gender Based
Violence AORs); while others have signed new dedicated RRT agreements with specific organisations
(Nutrition) or have adopted a mix of both approaches (WASH and Education). Some RRT members
have been hired by UNICEF on a consultancy basis.
3. Methodology
In as much as addressing all the objectives set out - the aim of the retreat was to take point of
departure in the concerns, experiences and interests of the RRT members. Hence the agenda for the
retreat was crafted in close collaboration with RRT members from all the clusters and AoRs. Prior to
the retreat 16 RRTs, including RATs and RECAs were consulted on their main issues of concern.
Challenges, opportunities, interests and ideas regarding deployments, work and arrival in country,
administrative and logistical issues, policy developments, inter-cluster coordination, capacity
building, information management, assessment, reporting, standardisation and alignment etc were
3
4
Ibid
See RRT power point presentations for latest up-dates on team structure (included in the drop-box link)
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
3
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
identified as important across all clusters. These issues subsequently informed the topics and
structure of the agenda. This consultative process allowed for quickly narrowing in on pertinent
issues for the RRTs.
The global cluster coordinators were also consulted on the topics for discussion, as were the Standby Partners – who gave specific input to the agenda for a separate partnership meeting also taking
place during the retreat.
Through this participatory approach the agenda created for the retreat was entirely informed by the
participants, and therefore also relevant and appropriate to the participants – enabling engagement,
interest and solutions oriented discussions.
The facilitation approach and methodology applied during the retreat combined presentations,
plenary discussions and group work. Several presentations were made by the RRTs themselves,
where lessons learned and experiences were shared with fellow colleagues. Many of the RRTs met
their teams for the first time and so upon request from the RRTs, time was set aside for the teams to
have their own specific side meetings, where internal team issues could be raised and addressed.
Pre-reading material including documents and power point presentations including the Cluster Lead
Agency Review 2013, the Child Protection Review 2012, The IASC, Transformative Agenda Reference
Document: Cluster Coordinator Reference Module 2012, The IASC Reference Module for the
Implementation of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle –May 2013 and a MIRA Briefing was sent to
participants in advance and can be found on this link:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49436669/Prereading%20_%20RRT%20Retreat.zip
All presentations from the RRT retreat itself are compiled in this link:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26990541/Final%20RRT%20Retreat.zip
The following pages summarise the topics discussed during the retreat, followed by a complete
overview of the recommendations made to each topic.
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
4
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
4. Topics & Summary of Discussions5
DAY ONE
The retreat opened with presentations of the history, back ground and conceptualisation of the
RRTs. With the oldest RRT, the WASH RRT, conceived in 2008, the Child Protection RRT formed in
2010, the Nutrition and GBV RRTs both created in 2011 and the most recent RRT being created for
the Education Cluster in 2012 there are many experiences and lessons learned with different
partnership models, deployment models, regional arrangements, team structures etc. This
cemented the need for bringing the five RRTs together with the objective of learning from each
other, finding ways to cooperate better and harmonise approaches. The value added of the RRT
arrangement was emphasised – from being a cost-effective model, quick and flexible, pragmatic and
innovative, tapping into a broad range of resources, building on partners’ comparative advantages
and enhancing partnerships.
Lessons learned from a recent review of the Child Protection RRT (2012) were presented and
confirmed that the RRT is a successful model and that it is quick, flexible with high quality staff that
provide necessary support and capacity building to the clusters as intended. However the
recommendations of the review also included redefining the scope of the RRTs and the functioning
of the RRT while also expanding the partnerships for sustainability6.
Findings from the UNICEF Cluster Lead Agency Evaluation (2013) were also presented and they
reiterated the strengths that the RRT system is increasingly strong, but with room for improvements,
including: increase the focus on priority countries and making sure that RRT support of cluster is
integrated into policy and practice. Another recommendation from the CLA review included
strengthening of the capacity and leadership of the global cluster coordination role as well as the
regional offices7.
Against this historical review and back drop the current RRTs presented their teams, their special
characteristics, structure, governance, funding channels, challenges and hopes8. The diversity of the
RRTs as well as the many commonalities presented, raised a number of initial questions from
plenary. This in turn laid the ground for the first break out group sessions with these four themes
(identified by the RRTs in the initial consultations):
1) RRT Role & Deployment Criteria
2) Arrival and work in country
3) Departure from Country and
4) Non-deployment time
Each of the four topics was discussed in mixed groups of RRTs, cluster coordinators, stand by
partners and EMOPS – which resulted in rich exchanges of experience and opinions. The more
specific issues and questions of these four topics evolved around the following:
5
See the final agenda for the retreat for overview of topics and structure of the retreat
For more information see the findings of the CP Review 2012 – accessible in the drop box link
7
For more information see the findings of the CLA review 2013 – accessible in the drop box link
8
Reference is made to the power point presentations made by each RRT during the retreat – can be accessed
in drop box link.
6
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
5
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Topics of group discussions – Day 1
RRT ROLE & DEPLOYMENT CRITERIA
ARRIVAL AND WORK IN COUNTRY
TORs clarity, relevance, and
appropriateness for deployment
Country Office’s and Regional Office’s
undertanding of the RRT role?
Type of deployments (coordination,
assessments, fundraising, preparedness)
CO’s and RO’s support to and use of RRT?
Briefing and integration into the system –
common approach?
Deployment criteria and conditions –
common criteria across clusters?
Deployment procedures, communication
to the CO/RO etc (common steps?)
Administrative and logistical procedures –
common standards across RRTs, including
common pre-departure check lists?
Countries of deployment – watchlist ?
Level 3? Smaller emergencies, L2, L1?
Protratcted crisis?
Fulfilling the TOR vs double hatting
(cluster work vs. Programme work) –
problems and how to deal with them?
RRTs role in capacity building ? Is it clear,
should they have a role?
Links, reporting and communication with
the Global Cluster while deployed ?
Support from Global Cluster while
deployed ?
DEPARTURE FROM COUNRTY
NON DEPLOYMENT TIME
CO’s and RO’s role, support and
understanding of the RRT departure what are the concerns?
RRTs have different deployment
arrangements (% deployed to field vs. %
not deployed) - should this be uniform?
Handover of work to who and when –
does CO have a plan? Does the global
cluster have a procedure for the RRTs?
What do you do when not deployed &
who benefits from your time ?
Sustainability of the RRT work, once they
have left – how to ensure?
Debriefing with CO, RO and HQ upon
return – who is involved and any
consistency?
Consistency in filling PERs, Supervisor
Reports – and the use of these? Common
procedures, practices?
Are you working with host agency or
global cluster?
Does your TOR specify what you do in the
non-deployment time?
How can the RRTs still support ’rapidly’
while not deployed ?
Time off and stress management between
deployments – how is this managed?
The purpose of the discussions was to exchange knowledge and strengths and weaknesses of the
current set-up and situation while also identifying areas for improvement and recommending which
practices and procedures can be harmonised or standardised across the clusters. One of the issues,
which was discussed across all four topics was the definition and need for clarity of the role of the
RRT, which currently is being interpreted differently from cluster to cluster and therefore has
different impacts on when and why the RRTs are deployed and what their task are. The complete
list of recommendations to the four topics is presented from page 11 onwards.
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
6
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
DAY TWO
The second day of the retreat began with a snap shot of the overall policy developments and
frameworks that guide the work of the RRTs. This included plenary discussions and group work,
brain storming and discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the Transformative Agenda, the
Humanitarian Programme Cycle, Inter-cluster coordination and the Cluster Coordination Reference
Module. The main discussion points are captured in the tables below9, while the recommendations
to each topic are presented in section 4.
Topics of group discussions – Day 2
Transformative Agenda – Strengths










Transformative Agenda- Weaknesses & Concerns
Structure of the TA provides opportunity for
better coordination
Predicted deliverables, response and timeline
Gives a clear framework and accountability
Shared expectations about the process
Very big focus on evidence-based programming,
it is very important
Influence programming decisions, especially
around the MIRA
Assessments are embedded throughout with the
renewed focus on evidence based programming
Improvement in decision making through clearer
definition/strategy
Pool of senior people in HCT
Emphasis on accountability to affected
populations => education prioritized















Unsure about individual sectoral assessments,
when and how are they integrated and
coordinated?
Current MIRA approach is weak for some sectors
Need for systematic roll-out of TA in country
Clarity needed on participation in the
coordination system
Does not clarify humanitarian coordination in
refugee contexts
More information on how to operationalise
accountability to affected populations
More communication & guidelines on L2 and L1
Process is not familiar to smaller
agencies/partners
Loss of involvement of government
Missed opportunity to address invisibility issue of
AORs (window is critical)
How accessible is the language? It can distance
partners from process.
Time line is very ambitious (considering
bureaucracy, visa delays etc)
Complexity and multi-culture nature of many L3,
will there be reference to that in the guidance?
Sectors have to compete for attention from
decision makers – esp in the first 72 hours
Lack of RRT role in the TA
Humanitarian Programme Cycle & Intercluster
Coordination – Strengths
Humanitarian Programme Cycle & Intercluster
Coordination – Weaknesses & Concerns







9
It is deeply fantastic and overdue
Sectors are influenced to work smartly together
Inter-cluster coordination already happening
Possibly opening for GBV mainstreaming (costs?)
Opportunity to raise concerns of clusters on

HPC implies OCHA led-ICC is the only mechanism
Inter-cluster coordination needs to be
operationalised – beyond information sharing
Not always possible for AORs to work
independently - hampers inter-cluster coord.
Compiled from the plenary/group discussion and the ’post-it notes on the wall’
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
7
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS






broader level (education)
Greater impact with a more coherent approach
Reduction of silos/maximisation of resources
Strategic objectives represent multiple sectors
Strategic objectives will bring actors back to
overall humanitarian imperative & principles)
Strategic objectives – conceptual will turn into
the actual, and activities will speak to each other
as they lead into each other.
Ability to meet needs of beneficiaries in a quicker
and more integrated way




Lack of leadership from the lead cluster in a
certain fields represents a limitation
How to change people’s minds on prioritising
agencies vs clusters?
For sectors: need a formal coordination
structure, otherwise too personality based.
Coordination becomes very front-heavy.
Cluster Coordination Reference ModuleStrengths
Cluster Coordination Reference Module Weaknesses & Concerns






CCRM allows for focus on preparedness, which
has been lacking
Potential adaptation of cluster structure/tools to
move to sector structure
RRT perspective: There is little motivation for fulltime cluster coordinators to deactivate. RRT has
less of constraints towards this
Transition progress or potential adaption of
cluster tools into existing sector structures
Added value of regional focus. E.g. RECAs have
countries on the horizon, can already start doing
data collection to track and look for triggers. It
helps WASH coordination.




Lack of capacity to support transition after cluster
phase out
Difficult to get funding for preparedness or
transition
Follow up of victims/survivors may be
endangered
Weak counterpart/ministry to handle transition
and hand over
Good coordination mechanisms may be
threatened
One of the biggest concerns emerging from the policy discussions was how to ensure the
accountability to the affected population, not only how this would be operationalised, but also how
it would be monitored and coordinated amongst actors in humanitarian response. The other
considerable concern related to the transformative agenda was the extent to which NGOs and
national governments will be able to influence the decision making process in the various stages of
the programme cycle. In terms of preparedness and transition, participants raised issues such as
improving linkages between humanitarian actors and development actors to ensure a smooth
transition – including the wish for better linkage between short term emergency funding and longterm development funding.
Following these discussions as well as a discussion on gender mainstreaming in inter-cluster
coordination, the forum split up into two groups:
The stand-by partners and cluster coordinators gathered to have a partnership meeting, where
issues such as human resources management, contractual arrangements, deployment arrangements
and funding were discussed, while the RRTs in groups and plenary deliberated on the topics of
information management, needs assessment and knowledge management.
The more specific subjects addressed in the RRT break out groups were:
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
8
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Inter-cluster Information
Management
Needs Assessment
Knowledge Management &
lessons learned
•Common humanitarian response tools: wwww & monitoring
•Cluster management tools: meeting minutes, contact lists, calendars, web sites etc
•IM products for information sharing, decision making and advocacy: snap shots, sits reps,
dash boards, overviews etc
•Inter-cluster IM capacities - strengths, gaps, training needs and how to stay up-to-date
with new developments and technologies
•Assessment tools, methodology - best practices
•Coordinated/multisector needs assessments - cluster priorities and role of the RRTs
•Needs assessment - capacity gaps across the RRTs - necessary skills/training needs etc
•How do needs assessments inform cluster strategies - strengths/weaknesses.
•How to better collect and share experiences, achievements and lessons learned across the
RRTs
•Reporting from missions - consistency and use of End of Mission Reports
•Knowledge management support needed from regional offices, head quarters and global
cluster coordinators
•Evaluation of RRT work
Through the discussions common challenges were identified. Currently the RRTs across all clusters
and AoRs apply different approaches and use different templates and forms for information
management, needs assessments and knowledge management. Subsequently, in the same spirit,
several suggestions for improvements, coordinated approaches and harmonisation were presented
in view of saving time and working more effectively. A suggestion to have focal points for
information management and needs assessment in all RRTs was generally welcomed as a first
important step. The more comprehensive list of agreements and suggestions for follow up are
included in the overview of recommendations.
The partnership meeting also generated a lot of discussion. Especially the topic of the value added of
the RRTs – internally and externally to the partner organisations - was emphasised as can be seen in
the table below:
Value Add of RRT support for Partners – externally
“visible” value
Value Add of RRT support for Partners – internal
value
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Partners are seen to be supporting new initiatives
The partner is seen as a strong, contributing
cluster partner
In some cases partner is funding directly – so
choosing RRT as an investment to contribute to
own mandate
Involvement of partner in RRT is bringing
attention of their donor/government
RRT is seen as “one string in the bow” in their
many ways of supporting the cluster
There is prestige in having an RRT member
Provides the voice of the partner in cluster
development initiatives
Builds the capacity of cluster coordination in
“rare” or hard to find profiles
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brings high level expertise to partner (e.g. RRT
members assisting other staff, Country and
emergency knowledge from deployments, Up to
date cluster and global practice knowledge)
Once the admin is set up it can be replicated for
other sectors, other agencies and other technical
areas such as assessment
Provides possibility of career progression for
roster/staff that partner can offer
Provides stability of contract for RRT member longer deployments
RRT member feels part of a team
RRT members contribute to multi-partner agency
outcomes
RRT members on longer contracts are available
when needed, and don’t need to be sought and
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
9
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
•
recruited each time
PARTNER TIME – helps the partner develop,
provides a “bridge” from partner to cluster
Challenges in Value Add of RRT support
• Need to build knowledge of cluster approach with donor/govt
• Hard for RRT members to explain to their colleagues at their host partner how their work fits
• Takes a lot of time to set up Agreements
• Several branches of one partner can be involved differently
• Can be difficult for roster managing partners to prove “point of difference” from standby deployments to
donors
The discussions regarding differences in models, partnership arrangements and contracts generated
many exchanges. Reaching a common approach on these matters is an ambitious aim, and there
were pros and cons in view of every one having the same deployment arrangements and every one
being different. An agreement was made to work towards common minimum standards or ground
rules for the RRTs – as illustrated in the figure below.
Human Resources – differences in models, partners, contracts etc
______________________________________________________
every one
minimum
ground
every one
different
standards
rules
same
…………………………………….
Issues that emerged from this particular discussion amongst others included the questions of
fairness and equal treatment of the RRTs working for different partners and the extent to which
partners are able to be flexible in view of the most concerning differences.
Funding and sustainability – two very important issues to maintain the RRT system - were also
discussed in the partnership meeting and the deliberations included:
Sustainability - depends on predictable / continuous funding.
Funding takes a long time to secure and is then for a limited period.
When partners come through existing standby they come already as partners in deployments rather
than building new model.
UNICEF contributes as a partner by providing RRT members.
Funding to partners direct to donors (rather than through UNICEF) is “bookable” - it contributes to
partner organisation and is easily accounted for, covers admin costs and shows up as income vs
output.
Having different partners with different funding is a way to sustain the RRT as a whole.
A funding proposal for one deployment can be seen as “too small” for donors.
All recommendations are listed on the following pages.
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
10
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
5. All Recommendations
This section contains all recommendations including comments and additional recommendations
generated from plenary upon presentation on Friday 21st June. A total of 28 areas of
recommendations were made. Below they are categorised according to theme. The unit or section
responsible for taking the recommendation forward is indicated in the last column.
It was commonly agreed to embark on recommendations immediately. Some processes are already
ongoing and will now be more focused and assisted by the clear recommendations, other processes
will have to begin afresh.
1
Recommendations – Defining and promoting the RRT concept
Role of RRT
Define clearly the role of the RRT
Distinguish between RRT deployment & the other SBP deployments
2
3
4
5
6
Value added
of RRT
Country
Office/Region
al Office
understanding
of the RRT
Inform
partners
about RRT
support
Highlight the specific work of RRT on global cluster websites
Build a common explanation tool for the RRT concept – eg a webpage
or brochure
Market RRT as a menu of functions with specific assistance to offer.
Use senior, regional, and local representatives/leaders and NGO
partners to advocate on your behalf (like CP)
IAHP
Raise Awareness with partners – that they can advocate to cluster for
deployment
Build request mechanism that is open to NGOs within the cluster
IAHP
Recommendations – Management of the RRT as a team
Deployment
Divide deployment criteria into 2-tier system: First tier is L3 = no
Criteria
regret, deploy regardless. Second tier is broader scope missions, L2 &
L1 (preparedness, transition, capacity building)
Agreement to adopt common deployment criteria for all RRTs based
on WASH criteria 1-3. Use criteria 4 and 5 as subcriteria to criteria 2
and 3
Adjust language of the criteria Note
RRT &
Capacity
Building
By who?
CCs/SAGs
+ EMOPS
CCs/SAGs
+ EMOPS
GCCs
Use Gavin’s map to see how deployments conducted so far
correspond to criteria to see whether this captures all situations
Align deployment criteria with HPC – countries of focus
Apply a coherent approach to identifying the countries to which RRTs
will be deployed – dialogue with RECA
Process for requests to be decided based on criteria – example
steering committees
Amount of capacity building should be based on reason for
deployment – relates to criteria for deployment
RRTs members are experienced and therefore capable of undertaking
training – consider their role in this process
Define RRT role clearly from the beginning, in the TOR – should it
include capacity building?
GCC
IAHP
By who?
IAHP,
EMOPS
IAHP,
EMOPS
IAHP,
EMOPS
IAHP,
EMOPS
??
EMOPs/IA
HP
GCCs
GCCU to
review
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
11
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
7
8
9
10
11
Links with
global cluster
Accountability
and
sustainability
of the RRT
work
Knowledge
Management
& Lessons
Learnt
Role of RRT in preparedness needs to be spelled out. It is a
deployment, but not emergency situation (possibly in non deployment
time).
Focus preparedness on priority countries
Links between RRTs and global cluster appear to be good and should
be maintained
Ensure that different types of links/channels are available for sensitive
information issues
Improve inter-cluster communication & coordination at the global
level through 1) community of practice & 2) more interaction of RRTs
Increase accountability of work of the RRTs at HQ, CO and RO by
setting up a follow-up system so RO and CO continue the work of the
RRTs
Increase accountability of work by strengthening lines of
communication between HQ, CO and RO
When CO requests RRTs they should have an ‘end-game ready’ for
when the RRTs leaves
General agreement to use a common tool & web platform for
sharing experiences and lessons learned – Aliochas example
Need to analyse more what knowledge can be shared and what
cannot
Some lessons and knowledge are better addressed at country level
and do not have to be brought up to global level
We need some volunteers to work with Brigitte on how to move
forward on capturing the lessons learned better
Have an annual RRT meeting (possibly in a different country) – identify
specific topics to be discussed and solved (e.g. gender, co-leadership,
specific country case studies etc)
Recommendations – Management of individual RRTs or deployments
Streamline HR Align and systematise RRT admin/logs systems. Make uniform
checklists for all RRT deployments.
Streamline deployment procedures at operational level that are
specific to UNICEF & Streamline HR as much as possible with SBP
partners
Review and use the deployment checklist made by CP RRT
Reflect in field reporting lines, briefing and CO contacts (as per
recommendations below) in the deployment checklist
Work out administrative issues pre-deployment (UN ID, email address
etc)
Map existing arrangements / entitlements between each partner
Survey RRT members on major points of concern regarding
entitlements
Propose to partners “ground rules” for harmonising entitlements
Partners to feedback on what is possible to harmonise
Defining how
Spell out and integrate remote support into the role/TOR of the RRT
RRT time is
dedicated/
Non-deployment times should be explained in the TOR, contract and
recorded
work plan of the RRT
Increase remote support time of the RRTs (time should be taken from
global cluster time, not HQ time)
Maintain deployment time = 50-60% and non-deployment time 6040%
GCCU/GCC
s
GCC
GCCs
GCCs
GCCU
GCCs
GCCs
GCCs
EMOPs –
All
GCCs
GCCs
Brigitte +
GCCs
EMOPS +
all
By who?
IAHP
IAHP
GCCs/CP
GCCs
IAHP/GCCs
IAHP
IAHP
GCCs/IAHP
Partners
CCs/SAGs
+ EMOPS
GCCs
GCCs/IAHP
IAHP/GCCs
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
12
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
12
13
14
15
16
Deployment
information
and briefing
Direct field
deployment
Consistency in
reporting
Stress
management
Create common principles for non-deployment time across AoRs and
clusters
Change the expression from “non-deployment” to “non-field time”
For each deployment: CCs /& RRTs to have briefing and debriefing
calls with CO senior management/Dep Reps/Rep to ensure clear
understanding of the deployment and its outcome (also done in CP
RRT)
IAHP
Clear communication of RRT role to the Country Office – make clear
distinction between support to cluster & programme
CO should share existing information with RRT before arrival (wwww,
maps etc) – include in TORs & deployment checklist
Establish contact between RRTs and regional colleagues/RECAs before
arrival
RRT/Cluster must report to the Rep/Dep Rep/Emergency Coordinator
in country.
CO senior management to facilitate RRTs work
Identify UNICEF staff focal point who helps: raise awareness, advocate
for recruitment, link RRTs work & build capacity
GCCs
Standardise reporting across RRTs: End of Mission Reports, Bi Weekly
Reports, Weekly Reports etc + agree on audience for dissemination.
Eliminate those reports, which are not relevant or duplicate work (e.g.
supervisor report)
Possibly revise the frequency of PER – to one annual PER done with
your supervisor and only submit EoMs after deployments
Regular reports should be developed and shared across RRTs in nondeployment time (common templates and submit at the same time)
Stress management should be addressed and solved with host
agencies & at HQ level (GBV RRT)
IAHP/GCCs
/GCCU
IAHP/CCs
Recommendations – Continuity and partnership
Funding and
Consider a joint approach to donors (eg RECA/RAT) –
support
Consider non traditional donors
IAHP
GCCs
GCCs
GCCs
GCCs
GCCs
GCCs
IAHP/CCs
GCCU
IAHP
By who?
IMC to
lead
Coordinators can try to have at least one position funded by partners
with ongoing funding to ensure sustainability, have a model where
other partners can come in/out depending on funding.
Partners who don’t manage rosters could still consider incorporating a
cluster deployment into TOR of pre identified emergency staff eg Save
person who has 12 month contract including 50% of time can be
deployed to Cluster
17
Recommendations – Tools – IM in Cluster operations
Standards in
Propose a gradiated standardised (flexible) template + get a global
Cluster
agreement on standards
Monitoring
Standards should be user friendly, designer friendly and printer
friendly
Need standardised templates – compile a starter-kit (also translated
into different languages)
By Who?
GCCU IM +
RRT IM
group
As above
GCCU +
RRT IM
group
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
13
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
18
IM products
for decision
making &
advocacy
Remember to use pre-existing tools in country
Make IM tools available ahead of time
Use Common Operational Datasets (e.g. P-codes) for compatibility
across clusters
Agreement between clusters on components to support reporting so it can feed into inter-cluster level (OCHA)
Align IM products across sectors
Align tools with IASC/OCHA so RRT IM products can be easily
integrated into OCHA templates
Make sure we have a common tool that facilitates feedback from
beneficiaries
Branding/image should be cluster not UNICEF – create
cluster Gmail accounts instead of UNICEF for branding purposes
19
IM knowledge
sharing
20
IM capacity
and support
Look at IM more strategically – each cluster to discuss which strategic
information to be shared with other clusters
Share best practices between sectors and share lessons learned –
through trainings & and a knowledge clearing house
Develop protocols for thematic and inter-cluster information (ex.
Nutrition and WASH in Chad – access to water points & nutrition
rates)
Needed: more IM support + more IM training for coordinators
IMs to join Inter-agency IM working Group
Need to have good IM in-country, or remote IM support (like CP)
Develop a Skype group for IMOs (share news, information, templates,
problems etc)
Map & share different existing IM products for decision making and
advocacy across clusters
21
22
23
24
All
As above
GCCU
GCCU +
RRT IMOs
GCCU
RRTs +
IMOs +
GCCU
Gavin/Alio
cha
GCCU +
IMOs
GCCU,
GCCs
GCCU, CCs
GCCU
GCCU
GCCs +
GCCU
GCCU
GCCU +
RRT IMOs
Recommendations – Gender, cross cutting themes and capcity development of RRT
members
Gender & CP
Share best practices, challenges and issues on gender in mission
mainstreamin reports
g
All RRTs will do gender training
Assess the need for RRTs to do GBV training on GBV guidelines
Include training on CP minimum standards for RRTs
Assessment
Need for more training on technical elements of assessments:
capacity gaps
methodology, sampling techniques, questionnaire design, interview
across RRTs
skills, soft ware
Nominate a Needs Assessment focal person from each cluster to
operate on site, between deployments, on remote etc. The focal
points should also build bridge across the clusters
By Who?
Recommendations – from RRT members on wider issues
Transformativ Build in additional systems to generate feedback loops for affected
e Agenda
populations
Need for more operational guideline on AAP – how to do it?
Support systematic roll out of TA at country level
Humanitarian
Acknowledge capacity of certain organisations to actually provide
By Who?
GCCU/GCC
s
GCCU
GCC
GCCU/GCC
RRTs with
?
GCCU
GBV team
CP CC
GCCs,
GCCU, NA
FP
GCCs
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
14
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Programme
Cycle & Intercluster
coordination
25
26
27
Cluster
Coordination
Reference
Module
NA tools &
Best practices
Coordinated
Needs
Assessment
services: We need integrated decision on matrix between clusters,
showing which organisation can work on what in specific contexts:
(e.g. thematically on cholera, displacement, drought etc).
s
Amend the 3W or 4W – so that it reflects inter-cluster approach +
create an accountability structure between clusters
Need to spell out criteria for cluster de and re-activation.
Ensure that we are transitioning cluster issues to sectors when RRTs
leave
GCC
Share data for analysis with partners and clusters rather than only
sharing conclusions and recommendations
All UNICEF-led clusters/partners to be trained in the same principles,
processes and methodologies of the multi-sectoral assessments
(MIRA)
RRTs & CCs to understand what is expected from and how to
contribute to the MIRA approach – need to make the engagement
clear ‘in house’
NA focal
points
GCCU /NA
focal
points
Identify operational guidance for MIRA and shared
experiences/suggestions from field
GCCs and
RRTs in
EoMs
GCCU /NA
focal
points
All
RRTs, GCCs
Explore possibility of inter-cluster assessment teams
28
Assessments
informing
strategies
Use the web-platform to engage and inform on MIRA across clusters
Keep assessment tool simple (KISS) – but RRTs to contribute to
strengthen analysis of data to inform humanitarian strategies better
(CAPs, CHAPs, Flash Appeals, strategic statements etc)
GCCU
GCC
GCCU /NA
focal
points
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
15
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
6. Other Outcomes of the Retreat
The long list of recommendations was a substantial achievement of the retreat. However in the last
session other outcomes were also expressed by RRT members as well as stand-by partners and
cluster coordinators, some of which are listed below:
 Getting the RRTs together with donors and partners – understanding the others’ procedures,
policies, etc. Developing good relationships with others.
 Seeing the strength of the collective and what is actually being achieved together, being able
to visualize the team. Experiencing the uniqueness of the RRT set up – the synergies and
complementarities across clusters - and exploring ways to have a stronger team, multisector approach.
 Understanding the difficulties and challenges that other teams are facing and agreeing on
common weaknesses and gaps that have to be turned in to strengths.
 Hearing about new developments and inter-cluster initiatives and ideas across clusters.
 Having a chance to think, brainstorm, get ideas on how to work together, find common
approaches etc.
 Learning about other arrangements, such as the regional structures of the WASH cluster
(RATs and RECAs) and other sectors could go that direction if they want to.
 From standby partners perspective: understanding RRTs thoroughly, what is the role in
connection with RRTs, how can SBPs facilitate their position as it is typically seconded to
UNICEF, and looking after the health and welfare of hosted employees as well.
 From UNICEF program division (child protection): understanding the need for building
capacity of country offices; prioritize cluster coordination trainings for local staff; speed up
recruitment when RRT leaves, having right people in talent groups and on (child protection)
roster. Having representatives from other UNICEF sector/programme divisions at the retreat
will increase the understanding of RRTs across sectors.
7. Follow up and Next Steps
Three days of discussions and exchange plus a substantial number of recommendations for follow up
requires commitment from all participants. A few comments, concerns and ideas expressed by
participants to this end10:
 Each group of participants needs to commit to move things forward
- RRTs - Commit to engage in keeping the group together and sharing experiences.
Meeting up with fellow RRTs in country when they are also there
- UNICEF: May not be achievable to standardize everything, but common ground rules can
be achieved rather than go for 100% harmonize
10
From plenary and feed back forms
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
16
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
-
Partners: Convene partners regularly and include them in the process
 Remember that all things do not have to be standardised and harmonised overnight, some
things should remain different… there is beauty in diversity. The task is to ‘triage’ and see
where the added value is to put in the effort to become more similar.
 There will be a lot of quick wins that will be easily made with immediate small tweaks
(deployment check lists, adjustments of templates, online trainings etc).
 It is important for progress that everyone meets and works as a team and utilizes the online
tools to stay in touch.
 This is the first joint meeting – and it only included the UNICEF lead clusters, but there are
other RRTs within other clusters, perhaps these RRTs can extend these lessons outside the
UNICEF-led clusters.
 Hold another RRT retreat in a year’s time – perhaps in a different country - with different
topics (country case studies, gender, transition, co-leadership issues etc) as well as different
external presenters (RRTs from other clusters, OCHA, ACAPs etc).
 Follow up on recommendations in a year’s time.
-----------------------------------------------00-------------------------------------------------
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
17
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Annexes
-
Final Agenda
Participants list
Concept Note for the Retreat
TOR for the Consultancy
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
18
Final Agenda
Time
AGENDA - DAY ONE - 19th June 2013
Theme
8:30-8:45
8:45-10:00
Practice and operations
Arrival & Registration...
Objective: Introduction, welcome, objective & expectations
 Welcome to the retreat
 Presentation of programme, aim & expectations
 Methodology and process of the retreat
 Ground rules/practical info/group work info
 Introduction & Warm up
Coffee break & Sign up for group work
Objective: Understanding the back ground, concept and development of RRTs
 Raison d’être, history and overview of the RRT concept (incl CP review and findings)
 Presentation of CLA review findings
Objective: learning about the characteristics of each RRT & getting an overview of frequency/type of deployments
10:00-10:15
10:15-10:45
10:45-11:45
11:45 -12:30
12:30-13:30
13:30-13:45
13:45-15.15
= 90 min
group work

Very brief introduction of the 5 RRTs (10 min each)



RRT 2012-2013 Deployment Statistics
Ongoing work on deployment criteria
Q&A to the RRT presentations
Lunch & Final sign up for afternoon group work
Assemble and explain the afternoon session & group work
Objective: Learn, exchange and discuss issues of concern to RRTs. Identify commonalities and differences + make
recommendation for common approach and improvements – GROUP WORK
1) Role of RRT & Criteria for deployment
TORs clarity, relevance and appropriateness vis a vis the deployment
Deployment criteria and conditions across RRTs – common criteria?
Presenter or
Facilitator
Brigitte
Gwyn (15 min)
Gwyn (15 min)
Rekha (10 min)
Rekha (20 min)
Rekha (20 min)
Julien
Reuben
Nicolas (Edu)
Lina (GBV)
Damien (WASH)
Geraldine (Nutr)
Helene (CP)
Gavin (10 min)
Lauren (5 min)
Julien/Jouni (40
min)
Rekha (15 min)
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Time
AGENDA - DAY ONE - 19th June 2013
-
Presenter or
Facilitator
Pre-departure briefing & package – existing material, which can be shared and made common?
2) Arrival and work in country
CO’s and RO’s understanding, support, and use of RRT
Briefing and integration into the system
Fulfilling the TOR, double ‘hatting’, cluster vs. programme
RRTs role in capacity building (of CO, colleagues etc?)
Links, reporting and communication with GCC
3) Departure from country
CO’s and RO’s role, support and understanding of departure
Handover of work – to who and when?
Sustainability of RRT work
Debriefing with CO, RO and upon return & use of PERs, Supervisor reports etc
15.15-15:35
15:35-16:55
16:55-17.35
4) Spending your ‘non-deployment time’
RRTs have different deployment arrangements (% deployed vs not deployed)
What do you do when not deployed & who benefits from your time?
How can RRTs support ‘rapidly’ while not deployed?
Working with host agency vs. working with Global Cluster
Stress management between deployments
Coffee break & Flip Chart Cruising
Presentation of key findings from discussion & top 4 recommendations in plenary – 20 min per group
17:35-20:00
Feedback on recommendations/findings from plenary
Quick wrap up
Evening Event (depart in bus 17:35)
Time
AGENDA - DAY TWO – 20th June 2013
Theme
8:30-9:00
9:00-10:00
Inter-cluster policy, capacity & harmony
Good morning, highlights from yesterday & intro to the day
Objective: Understanding the policy developments, TA, HPC, CCRM and what this means for RRT & Inter-cluster coordination
presentation, exercise, discussion
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
20 min
Katy
4 Rapporteurs
Katy (35 min)
Rekha (5 min)
Brigitte
Presenter Facilitator
20
Rekha
Gwyn & James (45
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Time
AGENDA - DAY TWO – 20th June 2013
Presenter Facilitator
min)
Gwyn & James (45
min
1) Transformative Agenda, Level 3 Emegergency & the Russian doll
2) The Humanitarian Programme Cycle & Intercluster Coordination
10:00-10:15
10:15-11:30
11:30:12:30
12:30-13:30
13:30-14:45
= 75 min
14:45-15:00
15:00-16:15
= 75 min
Coffee break
Objective: Understanding the policy developments, TA, HPC, CCRM and what this means for RRT & Intercluster coordination –
continued.... presentation, exercise, discussion
3) CCRM, Transition & Preparedness
Objective: Discuss inter-cluster practices and tools across RRTs. Find commonalities, what can be harmonised and what
capacities need to be strengthened across clusters – PLENARY/GROUP WORK
James & Gwyn (45
min)
1) Inter-cluster-gender mainstreaming
Delphine/April
Working in an integrated manner across sectors to address the distinct needs and priorities of girls, boys, women and men
Entry points and tools available for mainstreaming of gender in RRT's coordination, assessment and resource mobilization work
How do clusters do it? Examples of best practices from plenary
Top 4 recommendations for ways forward
Lunch
Inter-cluster tools & practice workshop - continued....
Presenter: Gavin (15
2) Inter-cluster IM
min)
Presentation of the basic tool kit
Partnership meeting in break
Topic 1) common hum response tools: wwww & monitoring
Discussion 40 min:
out room – See separate
Topic 2) Cluster management tools: meeting minutes, contact list, calendar, web sites
Gavin, Aliocha,
agenda
Topic 3) IM products for decision making, advocacy etc: snap shots, sit reps, dash boards
Damien, Jean M
Topic 4) inter-cluster IM capacity strengths and gaps, training needs and how to stay up-to-date
with new developments and technologies
Recommendations
20 min
Coffee break
3) Needs Assessment
Presenter: Monica
Presentation of field example of sector assessment & coordinated assessment
(RAT) Hani (CP RRT)
Partnership meeting in break
Topic 1) Assessment tools, methodology – best practices
(20 min)
out room continued....
Topic 2) Coordinated (multi-cluster) needs assessments – cluster priority & role of the RRTs
Topic 3) Assessment strengths & capacity gaps across the RRTs – necessary skills/training needs? Discussion: 40 min
Topic 4) How do Needs Assessments inform cluster strategies – strengths/weakness?
Recommendation: 15
Tools/framework/advocacy
min
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
21
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Time
16:15-17:30
= 75 min
17:30-17:45
AGENDA - DAY TWO – 20th June 2013
Presenter Facilitator
Stretching legs and re-focusing the brain
4) Managing knowledge & Lessons learned
Presentation of issues/problems and best practices (15 min)
Topic 1) How to better collect & share experiences, achievements & lessons learned across the
RRTs?
Topic 2) Reporting from missions + consistency and use of End of Mission Reports
Topic 3) Knowledge support needed from ROs, HQs, GCC
Topic 4) Evaluations of RRT work: when, how, aim?
Wrap up – summary of the day
st
Time
AGENDA - DAY THREE – 21 June 2013
Theme
8:30-9:00
Reflections & Recommendations
Good morning,
Recap the last two days
Intro to the day
Objective: RRT in the bigger picture and what will it look like in the future?
 What was the most important outcome from the last three days?
 How can the outcome of this retreat inform the future?
 How can participants help this move forward?
 Contemplate and share
Coffee break
 Highlights from SBP partnership meeting
 RRT fitting into the bigger picture & future perspectives
Objective: Summary of recommendations & way forward and quick feed-back on the retreat
 Summary of Recommendations
 Next steps
9:00-10:00
10:00-10:15
10:15-11: 00
11:00-12:30
12:30-13:30
13:30-14:30
Discussions: 40 min
Recommendations:
20 min
Rekha
Presenter –
Facilitator
 Feed back on the retreat
 Wrap up and thanks
Lunch
ECHO meeting with Cluster Coordinators
Progress & constraints to the project
Changes/improvements
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
Presenter &
Facilitator: Gwyn &
Brigitte (15 min)
Rekha
Rekha/Gwyn
Lauren
Dermot
RRT & CC (40 min)
Gwyn/Julien (1520 min)
Rekha 15 min
15 min
Dermot/Reuben
22
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Time
13:30-16:00
AGENDA - DAY THREE – 21st June 2013
Presenter –
Facilitator
Sustainability
Side Meetings:
RRTs – private meeting
IM – side meeting
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
23
List of Participants – RRT Retreat June 2013
Name
Role/Title
E-mail address
Jean-Christophe Barbiche
WASH Coordination
jbarbiche@unicef.org
Damien Brosnan
WASH IM
dbrosnan@unicef.org
Cheryl MacDonald
WASH RECA
cheryl.mcdonald@tearfund.org
Monica Ramos
WASH Assessment
mramos@care.org
Francesco Dotto
WASH Assessment
fdotto@oxfam.org.uk
Abel Augustinio
WASH Assessment
abel.augustinio@ifrc.org
Hanna Tina Fischer
Child Protection Coordination
htfischer@unicef.org
Elaine Jepsen
Child Protection Coordination
ejepsen@unicef.org
Helene Villeneuve
Child Protection Coordination
hvilleneuve@unicef.org
Hani Mansourian
Child Protection Assessment
hmansourian@unicef.org
Jean Mege
Child Protection IM
jmege@unicef.org
Lina Abirafeh
GBV Coordination
safarlina@gmail.com
Jessica Gorham
GBV Coordination
gorham@unfpa.org
Simona Pari
GBV Coordination
spari@unicef.org
Christine Heckman
GBV IM
ceheckman@hotmail.com
Nicolas Servas
Education Coordination
nicolas.servas@kua.fi
Landon Newby
Education IM
lsnewby@gmail.com
Geraldine Bellocq
Nutrition Coordination
gbellocq@unicef.org
Paul Wasike
Nutrition Coordination
Angeline Grant
Nutrition Coordination
angelinefollietgrant@gmail.com
Franck Bouvet
Global WASH Coordinator Deputy
fbouvet@unicef.org
Catherine Barnett
Child Protection Coordinator
cbarnett@unicef.org
Sabine Rakotomalala
Child Protection Coordinator Deputy
srakotomalala@unicef.org
Joanne Dunn
GBV Coordinator
jdunn@unicef.org
Ellen Van Kalmthout
Education Cluster Coordinator
ekalmthout@unicef.org
James Sparkes
Education Cluster Coordinator
james.sparkes@savethechildren.org
Josephine Ippe
Global Nutrition Cluster Coordinator
Global Nutrition Cluster Coordinator
Interim
Global Nutrition Cluster Coordinator
Deputy
jippe@unicef.org
Rapid Responders
Global Clusters/AoRs
Vivienne Forsythe
Ayadil Saparbekov
Hosting Partners
vforsythe@unicef.org
asaparbekov@unicef.org
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Anne Hoseth
NRC
anne.hoseth@nrc.no
Liv Stubbe
DRC
liv.stubbe@drc.dk
Geraldine Le Cuziat
Save the Children UK
g.lecuziat@savethechildren.org.uk
Lisa Sabot
Save the Children Switzerland
lisa.sabot@savethechildren.org
Jouni Hemberg
Finn Church Aid
jouni.hemberg@kirkonulkomaanapu.fi
Caroline Abla
IMC
cabla@internationalmedicalcorps.org
Sarah Carr
World Vision
sarah_carr@worldvision.ca
Susanne Mallaun
ECHO
susanne.mallaun@ec.europa.eu
Denis Heidebroek
ECHO
denis.heidebroek@ec.europa.eu
Dermot Carty
Deputy Director
dcarty@unicef.org
Gwyn Lewis
glewis@unicef.org
Reuben McCarthy
Inter Cluster Coordinator
Manager Humanitarian Capacity
Development Project
Julien Temple
Manager Humanitarian Partnership
jtemple@unicef.org
Lauren Jones
Consultant Humanitarian Partnership
ljones@unicef.org
Ingunn Eidhammer
Emergency Officer
ieidhammer@unicef.org
Gavin Wood
IM Specialist
gwood@unicef.org
Aliocha Salagnac
Project Officer Website Communications
asalagnac@unicef.org
Anna Ziolkovska
Global Nutrition Cluster IM Consultant
aziolkovska@unicef.org
Jordan Chaffin
Intern
jchaffin@unicef.org
Rekha Das
Facilitator
rekhasmail@gmail.com
Brigitte Court
Event Coordinator
bcourt@unicef.org
Child Protection Specialist
hnyangoya@unicef.org
Donor
EMOPS
remccarthy@unicef.org
Others
Hellen Nyangoya
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
25
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Concept Note
RRT RETREAT CONCEPT NOTE (DRAFT)
1. CLUSTER/AOR RAPID RESPONSE TEAMS (RRTs)
UNICEF led and co-led Cluster/AOR Rapid Response Teams
The Cluster/AoR Rapid Response Teams provide rapidly deployable coordination and technical
capacity (including needs assessment and information management capacity) in humanitarian
situations.
The UNICEF led and co-led Clusters/AoRs currently have different numbers of RRT members.
Fundamental elements however are in common across the Clusters/AoRs. These include the
following:
 RRTs are part of the core team of the Clusters/AoRs;
 RRT members are dedicated to provide coordination support;
 RRT members are immediately deployable; no identification of a suitable candidate from a
roster is required (as is the case with the Standby Partner rosters);
 RRT members have extensive experience and a strong knowledge of their respective sectors;
thus field support provided is often beyond what Standby Partner roster candidates can
offer.
No of RRT
members
Actual
Under recruitment
Hosting partner
WASH
Education
Nutrition
CP AoR
GBV AoR
4
3
2
2 (tbc)
1
4
4
1
4
1
CARE Australia,
Solidarité, Action
Contre La Faim (ACF),
Catholic Relief
Services, Norwegian
Church Aid
Norwegian
Refugee Council
(NRC),
Finn Church Aid
Save the Children
International
Medical Corp
(IMC),
ACF,
Save the Children,
World Vision
Danish Refugee
Council (DRC),
NRC, UNICEF,
Save the Children
Red R Australia
Norwegian
Refugee Council
(NRC),
UNICEF
With some nuances across Clusters/AORs, RRT support is being prioritized based on the level of the
emergency, with priority given to large scale and L3 emergencies and in countries where the Cluster
approach has just been activated and there is a need to establish a coordination system.
The second priority is given to countries with already established clusters but they have severe
capacity gaps and/or there are identified needs to strengthen coordination. In countries facing an
imminent and/or anticipated large scale crisis, as has been the case recently in Pakistan and the
Sahel region, the RRT has been deployed to build capacity and strengthen preparedness.
The RRTs are deployed by the Global clusters, either through a steering committee mechanism or by
a pre-agreed decision making system. All RRT decisions are made within a 48 hour turn around
period to avoid any un-necessary delays.
Based on Partnership
The partnership model for the RRTs varies between clusters/AoRs with some using existing standby
arrangement or bringing the partner organisations own resources (CP, GBV AORs); while others have
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
26
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
signed new dedicated RRT agreements with specific organisations (Nutrition) or have adopted a
mixed of both approaches (WASH and Education).
2. OBJECTIVES of the RRT retreat.
The 2013 RRT Retreat will bring all RRT members together with each other, with the GCCU, as well as
with partners hosting the RRTs.
Overall objective: Develop a coherent approach and enhance collaboration within the RRTs across
the five UNICEF (co)-led Clusters and AoRs, in collaboration with the RRT hosting partners, while
maintaining cluster specificity as needed.
Methodology: sharing of experiences and learning as a basis for developing coherent approaches
and mechanisms for greater collaboration
Specific objectives:
 Prioritization and alignment of countries that receive RRT support; clarify criteria and
processes for deployment (including roles and responsibilities of the different actors, how to
maximize synergies, coordinated deployments including team deployments, ToRs, predeployment orientation, team approaches, mechanisms for feedback and support,
debriefing/reporting, practical tips, etc.);
 Accountability for follow up of RRT recommendations at country level, including
replacement strategy if needed and potential gaps;
 Identify and agree the various communication and reporting mechanisms between RRTs as a
team, and between RRTs and Inter-Cluster Coordinators Unit (ICCU)/ Global Cluster
Coordinators (GCC)s;
 Identify orientation and capacity development needs of RRTs, and system for updating RRT
members on key developments (UNICEF, Clusters, TA);
 Foster team building of RRT members, and strengthen the relationship with the ICCU/GCC
and RRT hosting partners;
 Update on the latest developments regards Transformative Agenda;
 Address selected thematic issues in greater depth, e.g. gender marker, IM, inter-cluster
coordination,, Cluster Coordination capacity development strategy.
PARTICIPANTS:





RRT members: GBV (5x), CPWG (5x), Education (2 or 3x), Nutrition (1 confirmed, up to 4
depending on recruitment), WASH (7x)
GCCU staff (5-7x: Manager, IM specialist, Global Cluster/AoR Coordinators & Deputy
Coordinators )
Emergency Surge Capacity team (2x)
RRT hosting partners (12x?: NRC, DRC, ACF, Save The Children, CARE Australia, Red R
Australia, Solidarité, Catholic Relief Services, Norway Church Aid, Finn Church Aid, IMC,
World Vision (tbc)), ECHO
Others (5-6 people, tbc): representative global Protection Cluster, ECHO, other donors (tbc)
Annex with RRT staff (names by cluster/AoR), and current and prospective host agencies
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
27
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
SUGGESTED DATE:
June 2013 (first week)
LOCATION:
Venue requirements:
people).
Geneva, plenary meeting room for 30- 40 people, 4-6 breakout rooms (5-6
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
28
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Terms of Reference for Consultancy regarding
Preparation of the Cluster/AoR Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) Retreat
June 2013
1. Background
The Cluster/AoR Rapid Response Teams provide rapidly deployable coordination and technical
capacity (including needs assessment and information management capacity) in humanitarian
situations.
The UNICEF led and co-led Clusters/AoRs currently have different numbers of RRT members.
Fundamental elements however are in common across the Clusters/AoRs.
With some nuances across Clusters/AORs, RRT support is being prioritized based on the level of the
emergency, with priority given to large scale and L3 emergencies and in countries where the Cluster
approach has just been activated and there is a need to establish a coordination system.
The second priority is given to countries with already established clusters but that have severe
capacity gaps and/or where there are identified needs to strengthen coordination. In countries
facing an imminent and/or anticipated large scale crisis, as has been the case recently in Pakistan
and the Sahel region, the RRT has been deployed to build capacity and strengthen preparedness.
The RRTs are deployed by the Global clusters, either through a steering committee mechanism or by
a pre-agreed decision making system. All RRT decisions are made within a 48 hour turn around
period to avoid any un-necessary delays.
The partnership model for the RRTs varies between clusters/AoRs with some using existing standby
arrangement or bringing the partner organisations own resources (CP, GBV AORs); while others have
signed new dedicated RRT agreements with specific organisations (Nutrition) or have adopted a
mixed of both approaches (WASH and Education).
2. Objectives of the RRT Retreat
The 2013 RRT Retreat will bring all RRT members together with each other, with the GCCU, as well as
with partners hosting the RRTs.
Overall objective: Develop a coherent approach and enhance collaboration within the RRTs across
the five UNICEF (co)-led Clusters and AoRs, in collaboration with the RRT hosting partners, while
maintaining cluster specificity as needed.
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
29
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific objectives:
 Prioritization and alignment of countries that receive RRT support; clarify criteria and
processes for deployment (including roles and responsibilities of the different actors, how to
maximize synergies, coordinated deployments including team deployments, ToRs, predeployment orientation, team approaches, mechanisms for feedback and support,
debriefing/reporting, practical tips, etc.);
 Accountability for follow up of RRT recommendations at country level, including
replacement strategy if needed and potential gaps;
 Identify and agree the various communication and reporting mechanisms between RRTs as a
team, and between RRTs and Inter-Cluster Coordinators Unit (ICCU)/ Global Cluster
Coordinators (GCC)s;
 Identify orientation and capacity development needs of RRTs, and system for updating RRT
members on key developments (UNICEF, Clusters, TA);
 Foster team building of RRT members, and strengthen the relationship with the ICCU/GCC
and RRT hosting partners;
 Update on the latest developments regards Transformative Agenda and implication for the
cluster system;
 Address selected thematic issues in greater depth, e.g. gender marker, IM, inter-cluster
coordination,, Cluster Coordination capacity development strategy.
3. Deliverables
During the assignment the Consultant, under the strategic direction of IAHP and the GCCU
proactively work to ensure:






Organizing substantive aspects of the retreat, including consultation with the RRT, partners,
coordinators and set the agenda;
Organization of side events including one on one with partners and partner Global Cluster
Coordination Unit, Inter Agency Humanitarian Partnerships;
Work with Event Manager, agree on the venue and organization of the retreat;
Facilitate the three day retreat and participate/facilitate any relevant side meetings;
Draft meeting report and recommendations for the way forward;
Draft two-three page summary and ppt for use as advocacy tool with donors and other
partners
4. Management of the consultancy
The EMOPS Inter Cluster Manager will be responsible for management of this assignment in
collaboration with IAHP.
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
30
RRT RETREAT JUNE 2013 – MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS
5. Conditions and Budget
Contract Type: Special Service Agreement (consultancy)
Fees: …………………..USD
TOTAL Consultation: Fee + mission to Geneva
6. Time Frame
A total of 24 days, work to be carried out over a two month period starting ASAP
7. Location
The consultant will be home based with 2 or 3 Geneva based meetings beginning, mid and end of
consultancy.
8. Qualifications or specialized knowledge/experience required:






5+ years of humanitarian work
Strong analytical skills with ability to identify problems and propose solutions
An understanding or prior experience with the global clusters essential
Experience of country level coordination or directly supporting country level clusters would
be an asset
Languages: Fluency in oral and written English
Other Skills: Proficient written and communication skills together with computer skills and
use of relevant software and other applications. Ability to work independently is necessary.
RRT-Retreat |Geneva, 19th to 24th June 2013 |Retreat Report
31