1

9th Meeting of the IASC Global WASH Cluster 29-30 January 2009, Geneva Switzerland

Hosted by IFRC

Contents: I - Welcome and introductions................................................................................................................................... 2 II - Review of Previous Issues and Action Points ................................................................................................... 2 III – Objectives: Broader themes for the meeting .................................................................................................. 4 IV - Update on Cluster Approach, humanitarian reform and the WASH Cluster ............................................. 4 V - WASH Cluster Implementation, learning from interagency collaboration in S&E Asia ............................ 8 VI – Capacity mapping & assessment: Results of the Global Emergency WASH capacity survey (proj. 4) 10 VII – Advocacy and human right to water and sanitation (project 8) ................................................................ 13 VIII - Brief update of HWT in emergencies – LSHTM and IFRC (activity of project 3) .............................. 15 IX – Disaster Risk Reduction (project 13) ............................................................................................................. 16 X – Accountability (project 14) ................................................................................................................................ 17 XI – Cluster Coordination (project 1) ..................................................................................................................... 17 XII - Day 2 opening discussion ............................................................................................................................... 19 XIII - Evidence base/data collection workshop & update on Hygiene Promotion (project 3) ..................... 20 XIV - Information Management Training .............................................................................................................. 23 XV - WASH Cluster Learning paper (project 7) ................................................................................................... 25 XVI - Environment (project 11) .............................................................................................................................. 28 XVII - Project 6: training for capacity building – phase 2 ................................................................................... 29 XVIII – Technical Support Services (project 9) .................................................................................................... 30 XIX - Future vision of the WASH Cluster............................................................................................................. 30 Part 1: Overview of the history of the WASH Cluster to date (see Annex 1) .................................................. 30 Part 2: Changing roles at the global, regional, country level ................................................................................ 30 Part 3: Discussion and gap identification ................................................................................................................ 32 Part 4: Knowledge management, project 16? ......................................................................................................... 34 Future role and tasks of the WASH Cluster Summary ......................................................................................... 36 XXI - Closing .............................................................................................................................................................. 36

2

I - Welcome and introductions Paul Sherlock introduced the session and thanked IFRC for organizing and hosting the 9th IASC Global WASH Cluster meeting. Introductions were made by Paul, including participants from DFID, ECHO and the Norwegian Mission. He also introduced Clarissa Brocklehurst, chief of WASH for UNICEF New York who attended her first WASH Cluster meeting. Richard Allen from the Mentor Initiative (http://www.thementorinitiative.org/) was unable to attend the meeting as he became seriously ill while on his way to Geneva. Information on his presentation regarding vector control/malaria is available. Additional apologies were received from: Jo Mason (Concern), William Carter (IFRC), Mugur Dumitrache (Mercy Corp), Pierre Robert (Tearfund), Karim Jouda (UNWRA). Point for Action:

• Following on the same request for action from the June 2008 WASH Cluster meeting, ACF requests that organizations sign the ‘petition of inquiry’ into the deaths of ACF staff in Sri Lanka in August 2006; please go to the ACF website if you would like to sign it. UN support is especially welcome.

II - Review of Previous Issues and Action Points

Jean McCluskey facilitated a review of the June 2008 Cluster meeting action points and reviews the current meeting agenda. Previous action points

• CAST to send out contact list of REWAs. Completed.

• CAST to collect contact details of other regional staff. Will be completed during this meeting.

• CAST to organize discussion on deployed RRT members within UNICEF. Completed, 2/3 RRT members are at the meeting (1 going to Malawi).

• CAST to organize discussion to determine project priorities once the amount of funding is known. Ongoing, discussions to date indicate that though there is too much, no one wants to drop anything. There is still funding for T4CB, Environment, ER. Discussions are ongoing.

Update on humanitarian reform and the WASH Cluster

• CAST to make the report on time dispersal of funds from CERF to other agencies available to Cluster organizations. Ongoing, waiting for CERF update.

• CAST to update mapping project outputs table with all additional projects. Completed, information is in the information packet distributed.

• Cluster organizations to send contributions for the ACF lessons learned report before the end of July. Completed, update is in the information packet distributed, though revisions are ongoing.

Capacity mapping and assessment

• Cluster members to send the tools to local ministries and partners working in WASH to increase responses and validity. Ongoing, it would be useful to get input into this.

• RedR to link their membership to the global survey to increase responses and validity. Completed. Project 6: Training for Capacity Building

• Cluster members to forward any recommendations for Cluster Coordinators and for regional/international training coordinators to Toby Gould. Completed relatively well, the caliber was quite high.

• Cluster members to forward any relevant technical materials for the training to Toby Gould. Completed, with a lot of information, though copyright/public access issues became complicated.

3

• Cluster members interested in reviewing the Cluster Coordinator handbook should contact Toby Gould. Completed, Toby has brought 20 copies with him and more on CD for final review before printing.

• Toby Gould to contact SPHERE for identification of a strong editor to integrate cross-cutting issues. Ongoing.

Project 8b: HRTWS

• Cluster members to send any relevant case studies on the right to water to ACF (Julie Aubriot, Christophe Lanord). Ongoing, it is hoped that further examples will come out of the 4 regional trainings.

Advocacy

• Tearfund will revise the project to explore links with the HRTWS. Completed, the 2 projects have successfully joined together to provide training on both HRTWS and advocacy.

Environment

• The project lead will gather information over the coming 3-4 weeks and will contact the working group with recommendations to review. Completed.

Hygiene promotion

• Cluster members are to provide any feedback on the visual aids library by 15 November and any new names for the VAL. Completed, the VAL has expanded greatly.

• Any members interested in contributing to the work on evidence base and data collection or in joining the Peer group should contact the project lead. Completed.

Emergency materials

• UNICEF to explore stockpiling for small scale emergencies with Oxfam and the REWAs. Ongoing project.

• Project lead to arrange a discussion about private outsourcing. Ongoing.

• CAST to approach the Health Cluster regarding ORS, given an assumption that ORS is always available in a country while this is not the case. Ongoing, David Weatherill and Jean McCluskey will follow up and review the inter-Cluster matrices.

Information management

• IFRC to explore possibilities for a field simulation using these tools. Ongoing, IFRC is committed, but not the Red Cross.

• Project lead to explore integrating ACF's tools on blackberry into this project. Ongoing, due to additional technical considerations and problems before this step can be taken for PDAs (even in McKram, there were problems with PDAs).

HIV/AIDS

• The concept paper is to be extended to include vulnerable groups. Ongoing.

• Concern and RedR will explore linking the project to the training project in terms of integrating outputs. Ongoing.

Talk about the future – 2009 and beyond

• CAST to distribute the ToRs of the REWAs and RRT to Cluster agencies to understand roles and link with other important agency staff. Completed.

• CAST to share the names and emails of regional Cluster persons. Completed. Points for Action:

• CAST to share CERF Evaluation from OCHA.

• CAST (David Alford) to collect and share regional WASH contacts.

• CAST to share ToRs of REWAs and RRT.

4

• ALL (CAST to facilitate) to prioritize remaining funds for remaining projects.

III – Objectives: Broader themes for the meeting

The structure of this meeting is similar to previous ones, in that the agenda reviews project outputs, tools and progress. Unlike previous meetings it also reviews where the global WASH Cluster has come from and where it will be going once the projects are completed. The way forward needs to include the role of the global Cluster in the next 2, 5 and 10 years, projected work/needs for the sector, roll out of the Cluster and tools, fundraising strategies, where donors themselves are going/what they’re planning etc. A number of people who attended the first Cluster meeting in June 2006 are attending this one, a sign of the commitment to the Cluster moving forward. The first tools and outputs from the projects were reviewed in mid-2008 (at the previous Cluster meeting) and continue to be so. The global Cluster is now moving toward a second phase, one that is post-project and this is what needs to be mapped out.

IV - Update on Cluster Approach, humanitarian reform and the WASH Cluster

Mark Cutts gave the presentation and fielded questions afterwards. Paul Sherlock discussed recently declared Clusters. Adoption of the Cluster Approach (CA) OCHA has made the newly named humanitarian support unit (HSU) a permanent part of its internal structure (it had been created for a period of 6 months, then extended, now permanent), headed by Jamie McGoldrick. Due to its temporary status in the past, the unit had been quite reactive rather than proactive. The unit is now better structured, though this is still being finalized and focuses on best practice, policy. The ERC, John Holmes, is looking at how this change in the HSU can go beyond immediate humanitarian reform. Last year at the same time (early 2008) the Cluster was exception, not the rule and the CA was not used consistently. Within the last 12 months, the Cluster Approach has been formally adopted in 22 out of 26 HC countries. The 4 countries that have not formally adopted it are: 1. Eritrea (due to government restrictions and difficulties in organizing) 2. Niger (due to a weak OCHA office and HC, lack of attention) 3. Timor Leste (due to ongoing discussions about NGOs as co-leads for each of the Clusters. A letter has been sent to John Holmes regarding the co-leads and the HC. (In Zimbabwe the same difficult question arose as to NGO co-leadership and the HC. E.g. perception that Oxfam was able to resolve the IDP problem more quickly than UNICEF, therefore what is the best division of responsibility). 4. The 4th country could not be recalled. Resident Coordinator (RC) countries are generally not familiar with Cluster or with contingency planning guidelines, but HSU is doing more in this area. Honduras is one example where contingency planning work was used as an entry point for use of the CA. Honduras had its own contingency plan already in place and the lead for Shelter will be WFP. The CA will be used to try to change this. The government of Honduras (GoH) sent a letter to John Holmes agreeing to use the principals of the Cluster Approach, but not to formally adopt it. Georgia has done the same in adhering to the principles/spirit of the Cluster, but not formally accepting it. Recently declared WASH Clusters

• Iraq (an unusual Cluster in how it operates; there are 4 stakeholders from the NGO side and it’s very tightly controlled)

• Haiti

• Zimbabwe (WASH and health had had a problem working together, but after a concerted political effort from the global level, the problems were resolved)

• Sudan (adheres to Cluster principles and maintains 2 Cluster Coordinators, north and south)

5

• OPT (OPT is an unofficial, non-implementing WASH Cluster and further complicated by UNWRA and having to work through the Palestinian Authority. The local political situation around that made for a highly complex experience in setting up and implementing the CA; an IM person is on her way to Gaza as a critical component of how effective the WASH Cluster will be).

• Sri Lanka (discussions were not around ‘Cluster’ v. ‘non-Cluster’ but whether the CA was to be formally adopted or not, working through OCHA).

Mainstreaming the Cluster Approach into UNICEF systems: progress and challenges The REWAs see the WASH Cluster tools/trainings/activities as key to how UNICEF operates in south and East Asia. The critical component now is how best to roll out the work that has been done. More money for trainings and the RRT are critical for 2009. The last 2 trainings were for Cluster Coordination in Norway and the tri-Cluster training, using the WASH format. The RRT has already been deployed to Zimbabwe and OPT and is waiting for the go ahead for Malawi. Once this is ‘seen’ within the UNICEF system, the WASH Cluster may be forced to expand it, taking the RRT and other tools to scale more rapidly than would otherwise be possible. In the field, UNICEF Representatives have made the CA a positive experience and provided the support of the UNICEF system to the WASH Cluster. At HQ and regional levels, the CA has been running for 3 years and is gathering strength. The REWAs are being extended and the RRT has funding through September of this year. The fact that the Global Cluster Lead for staff position for WASH has been moved to the support budget also shows a high level of commitment to and comfort with the CA. The GCL vacancy is still open and applications will be accepted through February 9th, 2009. Evaluation of the CA Phase 2 of the independent evaluation of the CA will look at impact on affected populations. The steering committee for phase 2 will come from some of the Cluster leads and donors. The ToRs are about to be finalized and tenders put out for work to start April/May 2009 for 6-8 months. Six country reports and 1 overall budget will be looked at, although this may be reduced to 4-5 countries. Impact in the initial phases of the CA can be difficult to measure, but if it is being applied systematically, then this may become easier. The evaluation will be as much about processes as about impact. Future funding and operation of the Global Clusters/Cluster Lead agencies At the last donors’ meeting in October 2008, donors indicated that the Cluster Approach is how they see doing business now in humanitarian response. This has been clear on the ground in Gaza and while there is still some skepticism about the CA, it is much, much better than it has been in the recent past. Over the last 3 years, the WASH Cluster has undertaken an enormously ambitious program and WASH is often seen as a leader/driver for other Clusters thanks to the strong partnership that has developed. The critical part now is to roll out effectively and to finish the work started through the rest of 2009. To date, donors have contributed US$60m in the 2 joint appeals for capacity building which will not be done again. During the October 2008 donors’ meeting, recurrent costs were discussed as was mainstreaming the Cluster into the various lead agencies. Donors are much happier with how the Cluster are operating now and the prospect of mainstreaming looks much better than in the past when the joint appeals were going on. The IASC Principals’ meetings (the next one is April 2009) are really the only place where all humanitarian sector stakeholders come together (donors, cluster leads, NGOs representatives). Currently under discussion by the Principals is how the accountability of the Global Cluster Lead agencies to the ERC is to take shape. At the last meeting in Rome, Cluster Leads expressed support for a country status tracking methodology, rather than another report to the ERC. What HSU will be working on going forward HSU will work on more specific guidance on specific issues, such as contingency planning, Cluster leads working with national authorities, transition, co-leadership and other types of guidance. What OCHA will be working on going forward

6

A new ToR for HCs is currently being drafted (the previous one was completed in 2003) to reflect the responsibilities of the CA. The HCs and the ERC will be committed to the Cluster Approach for that year. The ToR will be shared with the local HCT and Cluster country teams. A training review team (of which 7 Clusters are part) will hold 7 regional humanitarian workshops for inter-cluster – humanitarian actors (this is not Cluster Coordination training). OCHA is supporting specific training courses for each of the Clusters. The new inter-agency field coordination website for all countries will have a ‘soft’ launch in mid-February 2009. It’s called ‘one response’. Feedback on what is happening with the Cerf evaluation will come later. Provocative questions about future work of the WASH Cluster Mark asked a series of provocative questions on how the WASH Cluster specifically would try to address some of the persistent issues in the sector.

• Now that the CA is in place and we now bring together technical people together much more systematically, what do we do with all the knowledge? Is it truly being used to best effect?

How are Clusters being innovative…

• What is being done on sustainable energy in humanitarian situations? In Darfur trees are still being cut down, and in the east of DRC 36m trees were cut down during various emergency responses. Fuel efficient stoves might have reduced this number significantly.

• What is being done on biogas, composting toilets etc.? We are sitting on a goldmine.

• How do we drive change and maximize standards and not just meeting minimum standards?

• Are we looking at the private sector?

• How are we looking at and learning from at other stakeholders?

• Are we looking at solar water pumps, solar lighting for latrines, composting toilets, urbanization? E.g. in Kyrgyzstan there are more sophisticated WASH systems, but some of these other issues are not being addressed.

• The WASH Cluster has made great strides so far, but needs to think about the problems of tomorrow. How is the WASH Cluster pushing forward on these issues?

Discussion points included: NGOs as Cluster agency co-leads:

• In principle, there is no problem with an NGO as Cluster co-lead and this has happened in several situations. In more and more countries, leadership is less and less UN-centric. What is most important is what is most effective and appropriate and that the arrangements be shared, otherwise contingency is useless. Two-way communication is critical and global and country teams also need to communicate appropriately. There is a need, however, for a consistent policy and OCHA is working on this and possibly a suggested checklist for NGOs to lead instead of a proscriptive process.

• E.g. If UNICEF is weak in a given country, and an NGO is quite strong and might provide better leadership, it is still frequently seen as a ‘sign of weakness’ by UNICEF and ‘giving money away’. Because NGOs tend to be cheaper, negotiations often happen around who will pay and not ‘here is the funding’. There is therefore a suspicion of cluster leads that get both funds and credit. More inclusiveness and democracy are needed in this process. On a more practical level, it is not clear how funds change hands when an NGO leads between global, regional, and country level.

o Zimbabwe has Oxfam and UNICEF as co-leads for WASH.

7

o Education is co-lead by UNICEF and Save the Children with a global level MOU outlining the division of responsibilities. This is not as innovative as it could be could be on the division of labor and there has never been an NGO Cluster lead at country level. There have been a huge variety and multiple arrangements with the education Cluster and the mapping exercise that education did could provide valuable lessons

o Timor Leste provides and interesting case where each organization plays to its strengths. While

Oxfam is more credible on the ground in terms of service delivery, UNICEF has more experience and clout when it comes to long term planning, assessment, government relations. These strengths are recognized on the ground and so Oxfam continues camp work and UNICEF has undertaken longer term advocacy.

o In Honduras it was decided that WFP would lead. These arrangements were not shared with global

level for backup and support. If they had been shared, donors would have been more willing to provide funding.

o In the Dominican Republic, PAHO led the WASH Cluster without a problem.

RCs/HCs

• The 4 pillars that the IASC came up with regarding the CA were leadership, funding, coordination and partnership. Now all but 3 of the HC are also RCs, even after long and ongoing debates about this by the IASC. As a principle, the IASC favors the RC/HC be the same person, but with some exceptions. Many disagree with this stance, but the overall IASC consensus is that RC/HC should remain 1 person, with exceptions. There is now an HC issues WG (sub group of IASC) which has also endorsed the same policy. Whether the larger group will also endorse it is not clear. The WG was set up 18 months ago.

• OCHA is now more involved with RC training to ensure that they have adequate knowledge in humanitarian issues and this is being improved upon by UNHCR. OCHA is also looking at improving the pool of HC/RC candidates in terms of being from outside the UN system (all actors and organizations), more women, trainings, rosters, although it is rare that more than 1 person is deployed for HC/RC. The 7 regional OCHA trainings should improve knowledge of the Cluster by HC/RCs.

• The development of a policy for HCTs and RCTs at country level is now in its initial stages in OCHA as at the moment, each country is different (sometimes these include donors, national NGOs etc.). The draft will be shared with Cluster Leads for comment. There is no effort to try to mirror the IASC.

Contingency planning at country level The humanitarian reform process that OCHA is going through has improved a number of tools/trainings and created some new ones (e.g. trainings on CAPS, the Cluster Approach etc.), now the goal is to rationalize everything, including significant improvements in contingency planning trainings. It takes time to make sure contingency planning materials are in sync with one another and reaching the right people (through trainings or through country level OCHA offices). In Honduras, for example, WFP was leading shelter, but the message on contingency planning did not get through. The 7 regional RC trainings will help, but it takes time to roll everything. Donors/funding

• DFID funded a project on how to strengthen the NGO role in humanitarian affairs.

• The percentage of the money reaching field level is not very much. Of the US$60 million that was given during the 2 global Cluster Appeals for global capacity, not very much of it went to field level according to the first evaluation report.

• Financial efficiency at the field/country level will be quite important.

• There are still practical problems with funding at the global, regional, and country level and how this is divided.

• OCHA is trying to be more structured and think ahead in terms of delivering adequately for the funds spent. Are we delivering in Zimbabwe and Darfur? In Darfur, for example, there is no longer the same need for the

8

Shelter Cluster or the joint logistics center to provide sheeting/tents because the demography has changed and shifted to urbanization and the need for long term shelter and the joint log center is trying to adapt to this shift.

• In an assessment, the response consumes the responders, but when the shift to early recovery happens, a different set of people need to be involved.

Information Management IM proved to be critical in both Haiti and Zimbabwe and would be invaluable as the focus of the 4th RRT member. When not deployed, the IM team member would be raising awareness of tools and working with REWAs and at country level to build IM. The IM roster applications will go out in the next few days. If initial efforts are not successful, then a decision will be made as to how to cast a wider net, including through Cluster Coordinator trainings. IM is also a good entry point for introducing other facets of the Cluster Approach.

Points for Action

• CAST to facilitate continued discussions with OCHA and others on NGOs as Leads/Co-leads at

country-level.

• CAST and Education Cluster/Louise Maule to facilitate investigation of Education Cluster mapping

example with NGO as lead agency, and as co-leads at the global-level

CAST to input into OCHA revision of ToRs for HCTs IM working group to send out IM roster notice within a few days

V - WASH Cluster Implementation, learning from interagency collaboration in S&E Asia The December 2008 Katmandu workshop provided an overview of what’s been done at national level through a support lense. The Regional Emergency WASH Advisors (REWAs) are funded by ECHO with additional support from DFID and UNICEF. Overview

• The 2 REWAs for South and East Asia, WASH Cluster UNICEF staff and a number of partners attended the meeting.

• The 6 REWAs continue with regional variations.

• It is important to emphasize that these are not regional Clusters and that regional networks and partnerships are needed because many/most organizations do not have regional level staff available. Partnerships, trust and transparency are the cornerstone of humanitarian work and it’s no different here. The complexity of the relationships also needs to be managed.

• South Asia is quite strong in terms of leading in WASH, in East Asia it varies somewhat.

• Long term/strong relationships with government make a big difference to how effective REWAs can be.

• Working within the UNICEF framework as dedicated emergency staff is a reality and should not be seen as an obstacle.

• Other challenges include how to engage with organizations that have a national, but not global presence and vise versa.

What was done … Cluster awareness workshops were held 18 months ago to try to ‘sell’ the Cluster Approach to WASH agencies. Investing the time to build trust and to work collectively has produced good results.

• Bangkok workshop, April 2008

• Katmandu workshop, July 2008

• A national level Cluster Coordinator training was held in Lahore, Pakistan (CCs were interviewed and many deployed in CC roles. Though the impact of CC training is hard to demonstrate, professionalizing the CC training was very much appreciated).

Future plans

9

• Future work includes an emphasis on interagency contingency planning and a concerted effort to maintain and follow up if contingency plans are to be robust and not just sit on the shelf.

• Hygiene promotion and sanitation will also be more prominent in trainings.

• WASH technical training has been run by RedR UK, India, Australia with common training modules that build consensus on key messages.

• What has been the experience with applying the knowledge gained in the training? Feedback from the Katmandu workshop indicates that this is an area that needs work.

Information management training: The 1st dedicated Information Management (IM) person was in Bangladesh and proved to be a critical response component. Monitoring was also key during the Bangladesh emergency. Use of the capacity mapping tools:

• The capacity mapping tools and the WASH vulnerabilities tool were good for generating information and have a lot of potential, but often responders don’t know what the information means. They are therefore not generating knowledge and getting past the analysis problem to actually improve decision-making are key.

• Harmonization of the capacity mapping tools is also important.

Additional feedback on the added value of the REWAs/regional Cluster presence:

• There was strong and positive feedback on the added value of a regional WASH Cluster presence.

• Links between national level Clusters and the global Cluster were strengthened by the REWAs.

• Specialist advice from the REWAs was appreciated.

• Mentoring by the REWAs

• Sustaining/support for the national Clusters. 4 future scenarios: mapping conditions and factors

Other Clusters are looking to the WASH model, as only the WASH Cluster has REWAs/regional Cluster presence. The ECHO project/funding will go on for another 2 years in the 6 regions. Institutionalizing the Cluster Approach and posts within UNICEF will have several implications.

• It will mean 3 emergency advisors in Bangkok

• Revising the Cluster CCCs (cluster part of it)

• Use of UNICEF emergency funding pool for greater sustainability

• Harmonization of tools and approaches, including the tri-Cluster trainings Discussion points included: Promotion of the Cluster Approach and extent of knowledge on the ground

• In Myanmar (cyclone Nargis, May 2008) the Cluster response was a reactive one, with no prior planning work, or existence of a Cluster prior to the emergency and very different expectations on the ground. Training was carried out, but nevertheless, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that various WASH actors are aware of the Cluster Approach and using the tools effectively. Good lessons were learned for the next time about prioritization and distribution of work.

• The Cluster Coordinator ToR, while overly ambitious, is clear about roles and responsibilities. Interpretations and different expectations may cause confusion in some areas and this needs work.

10

• Country level development sector network meetings would make excellent venues to promote the Cluster Approach and vital emergency preparation/planning work.

• Training for CCs should use existing structures where possible, but there is also a desire to improve training and knowledge by doing simulations (instead of just traditional/abstract training sessions) on what to expect in the first couple of weeks of a response, including contributing to assessments, flash appeals etc. Health and nutrition colleagues have also expressed interest in simulations. OCHA may be able to help with simulations.

UNICEF systems and the Cluster UNICEF systems are only equipped to deal with national NGO staff in the traditional UNICEF/NGO process that has already been established. The Cluster therefore (at the moment) can’t be run within UNICEF except through existing systems. WASH as a Cluster has proven to be a leader and is now significantly far ahead of many/most of the other Cluster in terms of work done. There is a real danger that WASH is so far ahead that we risk being isolated and losing momentum because donors/others may refuse to treat WASH separately from the other Clusters. E.g. in Pakistan, donors did not want to single out WASH for support because the other sectors were not at the same place. Is there a way WASH can help the others to fast-track projects like the REWAs? Funding and capacity building The REWAs are key to the WASH Cluster and only WASH has them. While the raison d’etre of the REWAs is to roll out the tools etc. it remains to be seen if they will have a role long term. At the moment, donors are looking for exit strategies for the REWAs once the work is done. How this is done and when, will have important lessons for other Clusters following suit. OCHA does not just coordinate humanitarian response, it also has an important role to play in early recovery (it is not just about the HCs). If there is little or no support for OCHA, then it cannot support the Clusters. No capacity building component for OCHA was put in at the time funds were requested.

Points for Action

• REWAs to investigate potential of simulations rather than traditional trainings.

• REWAs to investigate country-level development networks to promote Cluster Approach and emergency

preparedness. (Suggestion from WVI).

• All, facilitated by CAST to define vision of role and function of REWAs following the initial cluster roll-

out.

• CAST (David Alford) to upload the South Asia Regional Learning PPT on the WASH website (6 Feb.

2009).

VI – Capacity mapping and assessment: Results of the Global Emergency WASH capacity survey (project 4) The project and survey were carried out by InterWorks and presented by John Cosgrave. The project was carried out in an effort to identify gaps in the global capacity to respond to emergency needs in the WASH sector. A survey was chosen to harness the existing knowledge of WASH staff about the capacity gaps in the sector. This was because experience with the national level tools had highlighted the difficulties of identify both what capacities existed and what capacities were needed, as both varied greatly with circumstances. The survey looked at the following key areas of the emergency WASH sector:

• Gaps in staff numbers & skills

• Surge staff

11

• Material resources

• Financing and preparedness

• Coordination and information Summary of findings: The largest gaps by sector were: water supply v. 4 types of sanitation (if added together then sanitation was the largest gap). Staffing

• Worst gap overall was in personnel, especially the first week and after 1st year (the latter may be explained by lack of financial resources).

• In terms of skills needed v. existing skills, the current bias of current staff is for water people

• In terms of agency-wide human resources the speed of staff placements was seen as the problem rather than the skill sets.

o In the UN v. NGOs, recruitment of staff and HR procedures are heavily

• Support for staff-debriefing is very weak.

• Succession process for surge staff is often weak with little time for handovers. Material resources and delays

• Problems occur in activities such as borehole drilling;

• Not having HP materials in right language;

• Slow procurement processes/country bureaucracy

• Cash flow issues Funding Funding sources, especially at the very beginning of an emergency response are most critical as this will affect response decisions and length of responses (especially after the first month). Having cash on hand/emergency funds within the organization are key as it takes time to fundraise. (CERF funds may not come through for some time). Level of preparedness UN staff members were more likely to rate national contingency plans as good or very good. This seems to have been a recent improvement judging by the responses to this question (showing a large improvement in contingency planning at national level) from those how had worked exclusively for the UN compared with those who had worked exclusively for INGOs. (From slide 29). Information constraints Those with more experience were more likely to highlight the lack of background data as a critical or severe constraint. (From slide 24). Coordination In terms of staffing changes in the last 5 years, most responses were more positive, but not good. In logistics, more responses were positive about changes in the last 5 years in logistics. The most commonly sighted improvement was in coordination with the government; the worse was in the shortage of engineers and managers. These responses tended to be a matter of individual experience. Conclusion The conclusion of the findings (please see the full presentation for details and graphical representations) were that the sector has made significant advances in the last 5 years, with all 40 elements of the survey queried being identified as having improved. There is still a lot of scope for further improvement in the sector, especially in staffing issues, the area where respondents were most likely to say that things had got worse.

12

Recommendations from the Survey Increased preparedness and risk reduction offers the only realistic way of improving emergency response 1. More attention to risk reduction and preparedness in both development and relief projects Staffing issues are still one of the biggest constraints 2. Increase the HR pool for hygiene and sanitation 3. Include technical and social specialists on rosters (anthropology, sociology, and other relevant disciplines, not

just hydrogeology). 4. All agencies should examine how to improve HR 5. UN agencies to hold a conference on best practice Other recommendations 6. Identify a clearinghouse for training materials for the sector 7. Project to identify best practice in emergency administration and procurement 8. Use the WASH background data tool to establish baseline data 9. Spread knowledge of international and regional stockpiles. 10. Prioritise own-account emergency funding mechanisms Discussion points included: Results and survey questions

• The language used in the survey came from the WASH section – there was no one surveyed who was not from the WASH sector.

• Those people who had worked for UN agencies exclusively were much more likely to identify HR issues as very bad compared with those who worked for NGOs (NGO staff also complained about HR, but not as much).

• It was acknowledged that the water supply question was not well constructed and that in spite of only one question on HP, it is very frequently an issue in individual responses, even where it does not come out on top in the results.

• It was also acknowledged that there was an option to say that the survey results in some cases remained ‘unchanged’ with regard to HR issues.

• Given that the research validated what many had thought, the big surprise came from how many people thought that the sector had gotten better, especially among those with 15 years or more experience.

Issues arising: 1. It was unclear, outside of the specific questions within the survey, what specifically had improved in the sector

given that people responded based on their individual experiences/specific contexts in which they were working. How these changes impact on beneficiaries needs to be determined, but it is clear that HR is the least improved in last 5 years.

2. Availability of funding at the very start of an emergency is key, but how this is to be resolved needs further systemic discussion. CERF very frequently does not come on line for a month. For under funded or forgotten emergencies it is very useful to have revolving funds available for initial response.

3. Given that staffing/HR issues are seen as the largest gap, the difficulties in capturing national level capacity and how essentially HR policies in most cases are beyond WASH control, how do we move forward in this area of response?

Points for action:

• The final report from the survey will be uploaded onto the WASH website by Feb. 4, 2009.

13

Project 4 page link: http://www.humanitarianreform.org/Default.aspx?tabid=344 Document link for results report: http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clusters%20pages/WASH/Project%204%20-%20Results%20of%20the%20Global%20Wash%20Survey%20v135.pdf

VII – Advocacy and human right to water and sanitation (project 8) The HRTWS in emergency project was presented by Jean Lapegue and Christophe Lanord (humanitarian law) from Tearfund and Jean Lapegue replaced Julie Aubriot in making the presentation from ACF France as she was delayed by transport problems. The project designed to be a practical/operational approach to the right to water and sanitation in an emergency with concrete steps and tools. Overview of the project objectives:

• Clarify the understanding of all stakeholders involved in emergency planning/response on International legal standards (International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law)

• Operationalize those concepts – case studies

• Clarify the design and implementation of an advocacy strategy (Texts, key stakeholders, messages, impact). (From slide 2).

HRTWS ToR

• To improve the capacity to respond in emergency situations of all stakeholders involved by developing their knowledge and understanding of rights/responsibilities and duties toward the affected groups (Nat authorities, UN, Donors & I/LNGOs).

• To improve coordination, fundraising and advocacy capacities of all stakeholders involved in emergency situations.

• To improve the implementation of General Comment 15 (and other international treatise which include Human Right to Water either implicitly or explicitly) in emergency situations and the Human Right to Water recognition in International texts.

o The project a little broader with International Humanitarian Law. To protect populations affected in emergency contexts by international treaties. Advocacy ToR

• Mapping of WASH advocacy in emergencies

• Toolbox o Advocacy strategy template o Checklist of issues: RTW concerns (Responsibility, Victims, International standards, Key Messages)

• Management, evaluation guidance

• Contribution to Handbook

• Contribution to Training including how to turn legal aspects of this work into advocacy Progress to date: Activity 1 - Production of a handbook on the RTWS

• The first release of this handbook will be edited and disseminated at the World Water Forum in March 2009 (Istanbul).

• The independent expert on the right to water and sanitation, Ms Catarina de Albuquerque gave her comments on the handbook + foreword of the handbook.

Activity 2A - Self training tool on the RTWS

• The first draft of the self-training tool has been finalized in July 2008 and started to be tested through the regional workshops in January/February 2009.

14

• The final draft will be produced and disseminated in March 2009 after the round of regional workshops and presented in Istanbul at the World Water Forum.

Activity 2B - Organizing and running 6 regional workshops

• The invitations have been disseminated on a broad range of websites and through our personal networks.

• More than 350 applications received for the 6 regional workshops.

Dates Region Location

26-27 January Workshop for Middle East and North Africa Amman

5-6 February Workshop for Eastern and Southern Africa Nairobi

11-12 February Cancelled

Workshop for Americas and Caribbean Panama

16-17 February Workshop for Western and Central Africa Bobo Dioulasso Burkina

23-24 February Workshop for Asia and Pacific Bangkok

2-3 March Workshop for Europe and Central Asia Geneva

• Julie Aubriot has just returned from the 1st regional workshop held in Amman, Jordan for the Middle East region with positive feedback and learning for future workshops and for the presentation at the World Water Forum in Istanbul.

o The Middle East workshop had huge support from Pierre Fourcassie and 28 people participated. The first day focused on legal aspects of the HRTWS and the 2nd day on how to use these legal tools for advocacy purposes. Of special interest were staff from OPT/Gaza and the recent war which provided the impetus for many discussions. The workshop was very highly rated by the participants.

o Some of the tools used during the training workshop were: identifying patterns of discrimination,

means of describing victims, using legal bases and how these inform strategies and checklist of questions, and tools to help to map out path to carry out the work.

• Legal rights harder to identify than civil and political rights; if 1 person tortured it’s a violation, if 1 person doesn’t have water, then it is not as this does not take into account the group aspects of the problem. Accountability falls on the state, but response agencies still need to keep the dialogue going.

• The World Water Forum in Istanbul is a huge opportunity to raise the profile of these issues (20,000 people are expected, including 12 heads of state). ACF France would like someone from the Cluster to be on the presentation panel. The case studies will constitute ½ of the discussion and it will end with a call for a political statement.

Discussion points included: Whether participants are WASH staff and how they will apply the training in their work depends on very careful selection of the applications by the REWAs. Those working in hotspots, including representatives from INGOs, UN, government, Cluster donors were included in the Amman training. The range of people, especially from Israel/OPT provided for a range of conversations on WASH.

• A participant from Sudan approached the organizers and would like to include article 15 in new law and Lebanon wants to have something similar.

Points for action:

• Those who are interested in being on the panel in Istanbul, contact Julie Aubriot as soon as possible.

15

• Participants in the WWF are encouraged to book hotels now!

• ACF France will complete the HRTWS project outputs prior to the World Water Forum in Istanbul in mid-March 2009.

VIII - Brief update of HWT in emergencies – LSHTM and IFRC (activity of project 3) Danielle Lantagne gave the presentation for LSHTM and William Carter for IFRC. Overview PoUWT in Emergencies Point of use water treatment in emergencies (PoUWT) is generally used in development contexts and therefore not tested in emergency situations (this is also one of the outstanding research agenda questions from the evidence-base in emergencies project (under phase 2 of project 3, Hygiene Promotion). There is a lot of interest in seeing if these interventions and technologies can be transferred to emergency contexts. The literature review survey and report will be shared as soon as they are completed. In PoUWT there are 5 options: ceramic filtration, SWS, SODIS, biosand filtration, PuR (flocculant disinfectant). The factors for success of any home water treatment are: 1. that it is a quality product, 2. distribution, marketing, profit, 3. behavior change communication, 4. user adoption Evidence for the 5 available options There are a number of potential roles for PoUWT in emergency (see slide 8). The option that has been most widely studies is PUR, although Acquatab is more widely used, studies are only now ongoing. Acquatab studies should be available in the next month and those will be shared. Lessons learned:

• PouWT can be an effective water & sanitation intervention in some emergencies

• Current PoUWT projects expanding and correctly target emergencies with high diarrheal disease risk

• Considering user preference in PoUWT option selection will facilitate implementation

• Training is crucial to uptake of PoUWT in emergencies

• Adequate product stocks are necessary for emergency response

• Difficulties in obtaining local registration hinder projects

• Users should have all the materials necessary to use the PoUWT option

• Chlorine dosage needs to be considered in light of user acceptability concerns Research gaps

• Project monitoring and evaluation - chlorine residual is better as an indicator than diarrheal disease

• Efficacy of the ‘standard interventions’

• Lessons learned from projects with multiple PoUWT interventions

• PoUWT effectiveness in acute emergencies

• PoUWT effectiveness compared to other water & sanitation interventions Thematic questions

Should new or untested PoUWT products be introduced in an emergency? Are there PoUWT options that are more appropriate in certain emergencies? Are developmentalist perspectives of post-emergency access, sustainability, and empowerment relevant? How do we provide technical assistance and decision trees for implementers?

16

LSHTM will finish this report (the last part of protocol) for multiple options in acute emergencies. Discussion points included: One of the issues in this area of research is that over time some researchers have switched back and forth on certain issues, e.g. Sandy Cairncross and Tom Clausen have gone back and forth. Some of this can be explained by different methods working in different contexts. While many see the whole PoUWT sector as a panacea, it is not and while ceramic and biosand filters work well in Cambodia, they may not work well in parts of Africa. Generalizations are a problem. The point of this work is to try to define what works where and in that way improve consistency. 2. IFRC publication on HWTSS in emergency Overview Household water treatment and safe storage in emergencies There has been a lot of academic research in this area, but this publication is for the person in the field and what to do on a practical level. The methods advocated in the new manual: straining as a step, not a method, generic branding, disinfection (rolling boiling, solar, chemical), sedimentation (three pot, chemical), and filtration (more work is needed for emergencies). Decision tree The publication provides information on which product to distribute and guidance on what to choose to distribute. This manual provides guidance for someone with no technical experience at all with safe storage and working with what’s available (including guidance on both wide and narrow neck vessels). Note on training IFRC is emphatic that tablets or other methods for HWTSS will not be distributed without requisite training as there are all sorts of incorrect ways for the tablets to be used (consumed as medicine, tablets/sediment remains at the bottom of the vessel, they are thrown away). All the fact sheets are done by one artist in one style. The idea is that one person uses decision tree and makes copies of posters for volunteers. Points for Action:

• LSHTM will finish this report (the last part of protocol) for multiple options in acute emergencies.

• The literature review survey and report from LSHTM will be shared as soon as they are completed.

• The IFRC manual is available online in English, French and Spanish or from William.carter@ifrc.org

IX – Disaster Risk Reduction (project 13) Erik Rottier gave the presentation on DRR. Anne te Molder was not able to attend the Cluster meeting. Rationale for this project The number and strength of disasters are increasing exponentially and WASH systems and actors must be prepared. Emergency WASH response is temporary and unsustainable, WASH components are vulnerable to harmful events and new problems may arise from these events such as vector-borne diseases. The dangers here are that emergency components become permanent and there is no effort to build back better. Update and way forward Given the time and resource constraints, the scope of the project must be very well defined. It is an ambitious project. A number of options are available including reviews of available materials, mainstreaming, gap analysis, field resources for practitioners etc. Specific options

• Field-level tools for practitioners with requisite testing would be possible depending on what was initially received from the field

• A review/mapping of existing DRR materials with a gap analysis for moving forward on WASH DRR

17

• Mainstreaming of DRR into existing WASH Cluster tools, although this would take substantial time and would be difficult (if this option were successful, it could be a catalyst for mainstreaming DRR into WASH in general)

Points for Action:

CARE Netherlands will further define Project 13: DRR and investigate links with Project 11: Environment bases on input and feedback from the WASH Cluster anne.temolder@carenederland.org / rottier@carenederland.org.

X – Accountability (project 14) Suazanne Ferron presented the accountability project. Rationale for this project Accountability is something that is often talked about in the emergency WASH sector, but difficult to pin down in terms of concrete actions and tools that will provide better information and feedback to beneficiaries. Update and way forward As this is a new project and on a topic that can be difficult to measure, multiple options are available for how this project is formulated, depending on what needs are identified for the time and resources available (it needs to be a very practical project). How best can Suzanne spend her time on this? tools, resources, practical ideas for field use including contacts, identification of gaps are all options. Specific options

A film advocating for greater accountability of responding agencies to beneficiaries as well as to the wider humanitarian community, though this is very expensive

A review of existing materials or list of resources in place of another tool kit (could include more detailed standards and specific WASH standards for accountability)

Integrating accountability into some/all of the existing tools, including IM and Cluster Coordination as this project is also about trying to change a culture of practice

Any specific case studies would be greatly appreciated

There was also concern about accountability within the Cluster mechanism on how to ensure resources for translations and responsibility of Cluster members to go to meetings etc., but it was made clear that these were outside the remit of the project.

Points for Action:

Oxfam GB will further define Project 14: Accountability based on input and feedback from the WASH Cluster. Suggestions should be sent to Suzanne Ferron Suzanne.ferron@gmail.com.

XI – Cluster Coordination (project 1) Update of the project This discussion is primarily about phase 3 and beyond. Output 1: Continuing and 1 Global WASH Cluster Coordinator training remains. Output 4: The project would like to provide more support to individual Cluster Coordinators through a web-based network of peer support, mentoring for 1st deployments for selected Cluster Coordinators (including REWAs and/or expert Coordinators familiar with UNICEF systems). Output 5:

18

The project would like to support additional UNICEF-led national Coordination trainings (the materials have been developed and project 1 would provide a trainer for each country. Output 6: Field testing and revision of the handbook is ongoing and Toby has brought 20 initial copies with him for those interested. Additional CD copies will be made during the course of the meeting. Phase 3 – more of the same and different Discussion points included: Cluster Coordinator Training and Roster Phases 1-2 generated 92 people who have been accepted to the Cluster Coordinator Roster. Of those 27 are suitable for large rapid onset emergencies and 39 for small rapid onset emergencies. The caveat for the remaining candidates is that some will need some support to go in as first time Cluster Coordinators Of the 7 REWAs, 4 have taken the Cluster Coordinator training. 30% of deployments from the Cluster Coordinator Roster have been internal UNICEF candidates. 56% have taken the regional trainings. The REWAs have provided a lot of support to the Cluster Coordinator training process and in Latin America they did their own training. Project 1 provided some support to South and East Asia in terms of candidate selection and additional support for East Africa. At the national level, a 3 day course took place in Pakistan led by UNICEF which proved successful and project 1 would like to support more of these in the coming year. The sustainability of the Cluster Coordinator roster is a concern going forward as is its maintenance and RedR needs to discuss these issues with UNICEF’s division of HR (DHR). Additionally, how the Cluster follow individuals and rates their performance are yet to be determined (2 options for rating Coordinator performance are linking it to the learning project or discussing use of Performance Evaluation Reviews from UNICEF/DHR). The roster also needs to be more strongly linked with the 5 year WASH Cluster strategy. Other existing rosters should be further developed, especially local ones. RedR needs to link with other Clusters with regard to the Cluster Coordination handbook. WASH had linked with Health, but theirs turned out differently. Shelter also has a Cluster Coordinator handbook out. Some kind of mechanism for country-level leadership needs to be discussed, including the balance of UNICEF and non-UNICEF Coordinators, how to bring forward field Coordinators safely, as well as how to provide Cluster Coordinator training at country level. Mentoring and other initiatives Discussion around mentors has come out strongly as a need, but the question is how best to accomplish this. As above, those Cluster Coordinators without significant experience need some kind of support before their first deployment or during it. It is not realistic or good practice to send someone inexperienced into an emergency. A mentorship system could be online or telephonic, but care needs to be taken that the entire Cluster is not undermined by this kind of support. A major challenge in mentoring internal staff and fostering their skills is the lack of time, tight deadlines and donor demands. It is not an easy thing to do and many agencies have had difficulty in supporting/promoting younger staff, although UNICEF and IRC do have such formalized programs. Agencies therefore compete with one another and end up poaching strong staff. This issue needs to be dealt with in a pragmatic way and rosters need to be shared

19

among the WASH Cluster agencies. An MOU amongst operational agencies on sharing of rosters could be an important step. Another issue to consider more broadly is attracting new people into the sector. Links with universities, advocacy organizations and the private sector should be encouraged to attract those who might be interested in emergency WASH. Training of agency development staff is another option for finding high quality candidates, as is training for local staff with additional shadowing and job exchange opportunities. Expansion of training options could include linking with project 6 (training for capacity building), following the hygiene promotion group model and looking at local/regional training institutions to continue trainings. Identifying local groups for training in contingency planning is also an option. Funding for a systematic mentoring program is currently lacking. Surge capacity In the area of surge capacity, mentoring support could be extended beyond the WASH Cluster Coordinator to the entire Cluster. How this would work practically is not clear, but those with insufficient experience would need to be followed to ensure that they work up to the level of national Cluster Coordinator (through mentoring, training, or other support). How the Cluster follows individuals and rates their performance is yet to be determined, but it is important because there will always be some people who will not perform well. (2 options for rating Coordinator performance are linking it to the learning project or discussing use of Performance Evaluation Reviews (PERs) from UNICEF/DHR). Professionalization or accreditation for Cluster Coordinators is difficult and would be tied to some kind of performance review. PERs might be one way of moving in this direction. National level Cluster Coordinator training is a good way to reach promising people at a lower level and to involve local government in the process. Pakistan piloted this way of working and other countries should be encouraged to do this. Other aspects of HR

The hygiene promotion project is setting up a database of mentors to support practitioners in the field as well as a list of local training institutions to take on future trainings (e.g. CREPA in West Africa).

The IM project is about to set up an IM roster of individuals who are able and willing to be deployed. Points for Action:

• Each agency will investigate HR obstacles to rapid emergency deployment.

• UNICEF CAST to discuss with Rosters and their sustainability with DHR.

• RedR/UNICEF RedR to link with DHR on rosters/sustainability.

• RedR to initiate more strategic plan for the coming 5 years.

• RedR, UNICEF CAST to look into WCC performance evaluation mechanism (link with DHR on PERs?).

• RedR, CAST to finalize discussions on Phase 3, Project 1: Cluster Coordination and give go ahead toby.gould@redr.org.

XII - Day 2 opening Discussion: Various points were raised on Day 2 for discussion and which were not directly related to specific projects or initiatives.

20

Roles and responsibilities of the Steering and Peer Groups The discussion focused on how active a role Steering Groups played in each of the projects. Are the projects providing value for money? Are they providing follow up, support, monitoring, validation of tools etc. to ensure that projects stay on track? Discussion points included: This is supposed to be the role of the Steering groups to begin with and some thought that this role was ongoing and being carried out and had a highly positive impact on work to date. Others felt that it was easier to engage with and make more progress in a forum such as the WASH Cluster meetings. It was also pointed out that while many Steering groups were very committed to the projects, in other cases only 1 or 2 Steering group members participated in teleconferences or simply did not have the time to put in or to review decisions.

1. Cluster Coordination RedR UK, UNICEF, (Richard, REWA) 2. Information Management IRC, Oxfam, UNICEF 3. Hygiene promotion ACF, IRC, IFRC, Oxfam, UNICEF 4. Capacity mapping Complete (Interworks, UNICEF, WVI) 5. Stockpiling Oxfam, UNICEF, WVI 6. Training for capacity building IRC, Oxfam, RedR UK, UNHCR, UNICEF 7. Learning ACF UK 8. HRTWS/Advocacy ACF France 9. TSS UNHCR, CDC, RedR UK, Oxfam, UNICEF, TearFund, ACF,

World Vision 11. Environment CARE International, ProAct, IFRC, IRC (TBC), UNICEF (Sarah

Bish, water & env.), Concern, UNICEF 12. Early recovery 13. Disaster risk reduction CARE Netherlands 14. Accountability Oxfam, WVI, IRC, TearFund 15. Rapid response team CARE International, Oxfam, ACF France, UNICEF, (WASH &

EMOPS)

The Branding and possible logo for the WASH Cluster Drew Parker has communicated with UNICEF’s division of communication (DOC) about the logo options put forward. DOC’s feedback included: consideration of the size of the lettering, what the picture/logo conveys about emergency WASH, colors. One suggestion was to brand the Cluster the same way that UN Water does, which is with its name only. Points for Action:

CAST to facilitate the redefining expectations of Steering and Peer Group members to ensure sufficient time is given to each project. CAST to facilitate investigation of the GWC Logo, including colors, image, and branding issues around the IASC/UNICEF

XIII - Evidence base/data collection workshop and update on the Hygiene Promotion project (project 3) Ben Harvey presented a summary of the workshops that were held in the 2 days before the Cluster meeting in Geneva. The two workshops were on data collection methodologies and on the state of the emergency WASH evidence base. Several statements on various aspects of work were developed, agreed to and will be finalized in the coming weeks. 1. Evidence base We agree that evidence for the health-effectiveness of water supply, sanitation, and hygiene interventions from a variety of contexts is relevant and sufficient for use in emergency contexts. However, there remain gaps in

21

proven good practice for interventions in emergency settings particularly in the acute phase (e.g. mass soap distribution) and the effectiveness of certain areas of accepted good practice remains unproven (15L). 2. Risk based approach We agree that risk based approach can and should be used to do the following: identify critical disease-transmission paths and other risks for vulnerable groups and describe needs and prioritize water supply, sanitation and hygiene interventions; demonstrate risk reduction as a result of intervention. 3. Framework of approaches for mobilization for hygiene promotion We agree that using a framework for selecting appropriate approaches for mobilization for hygiene promotion approaches for different phases of emergencies and different emergency contexts will enhance effectiveness and accountability for water supply, sanitation, and hygiene interventions. 4. Data collection methods We agree that there is a need for more consistent, more rational and better use of appropriate qualitative and quantitative data collection and reporting methods for providing sufficient good quality data for informing and describing water supply, sanitation and hygiene responses in emergencies, and enabling accountability. 5. Collective action We recognize the value of taking collective action to make progress on areas of common concern discussed at this workshop, through the WASH cluster and by involving other stakeholders from within and without the sector. http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clusters%20pages/WASH/Project%203%20-%20RapporteurReport.pdf Objectives The main questions to be addressed in these workshops were:

• Can the current evidence be applied to emergency situations?

• What social mobilization approaches are possible in emergencies?

• What are the research needs for these areas? The specific issues addressed in the sessions were:

• Is the evidence base of PHAST/child to child possible and relevant in an emergency?

• Specific guidance for data collection in an emergency

• Is there a consensus on best practice?

• Is there a level of sanitation coverage to create a primary barrier to diarrheal disease? Additional points:

• Practitioners, academic experts and consultants looked at the current evidence base during the workshops and reached a consensus on the way forward.

• Emergency WASH practitioners tend to think that WASH interventions are more effective than the evidence suggests.

• There is a problem in agreeing on what is an emergency and the relevant phases (e.g. acute, stabilized, ER etc.).

• An example under the critical research gaps/key questions is whether soap needs to be in family hygiene kits, or should it be sent out first to denote its importance. Who would do the research on this and is it really needed?

22

There is a risk-based approach for the research, including risk-based tools to prioritize intervention (e.g. sometimes water quality is more important). Along with this, there is a need to contextualize the current evidence. There is a need to get WASH epidemiologists to go to emergency situations to find out which interventions need to be prioritized.

• Current findings use a variety of approaches and some are very comprehensive.

• In general, the emergency WASH sector is not learning from what it’s been doing over the years. Donors and other agencies now want a systematic and representative sample by day 30 of an emergency.

Discussion points included: Types of data and evidence

• Quantitative and qualitative data are needed and this came out in the workshop discussion. Qualitative data will continue to be part of the overall work and will not be left out.

• Risk-based tools are as important as real-time applications used for preparedness.

• There is generally very low capacity on data analysis; no one know what to do with data.

• Evidence from very poor slums cannot really be applied to emergency situations because people are not moving around and are used to their own pathogens and environment. Once mobile, the situation changes.

• P&G is funding work on PoUWT in emergency, who will be able to fund other aspects/interventions?

• The concept notes agreed to should be shared with as wide an academic audience as possible.

• Discussion about protection, dignity and rights did not come out strongly in the summary. Funding DFID has invested in the Health & Nutrition Tracking Service and WASH is encouraged to develop its own sector evidence to address the imbalance. SPHERE Oxfam GB will be doing the next revision of SPHERE. The WASH Cluster endorsed SPHERE at the beginning. REWA and field feedback will be important to include in the new revision. Points for action:

• LSHTM (Daniele Lantagne) will share a1-page Concept Note on research questions emerging from EB/DCM workshop by end-February.

• IRC (Dorothy Peprah) will share a1-page summary exploring child-to-child programs in emergencies, and whether GWC should consider funding by end-February.

• CDC (Tom Handzel) will share a1-page Concept Note on way forward for data collection and capacity for data analysis by end February.

Hygiene Promotion Lucy Russell presented an update on the hygiene promotion work. Introductory Hygiene Promotion CD Available in English, French, Spanish, Bahasa at www.humanitarianreform.org Training package for Hygiene Promoters and Community Mobilisers

• CM training (3 days) aimed at limited literacy

• HP training to enable trainer to rapidly prepare a training for field HPs (3 modules)

• Disc available during the meeting and includes all of the above (English, French, Spanish), but please do NOT copy because translations are incomplete

• Should be available on www.humanitarianreform.org by March

23

New training module 4

• Module 4 resulted from the pilots - need for module on HP coordination or coordination of HP

• Already developed and reviewed

• Still to be piloted (hopefully May)

• Then finalized, final translations and put on website

• Final HP Training Disc will include CM, HP 1,2,3 and 4, and Introduction CD (hopefully September) to be widely distributed

WASH Visual Aids Library CD

• Many new contributions have been received

• A little delayed but hope to have ready by February/March

• Planning large distribution of Disc

• Will also go on website (need to work out how) Evidence Base and Data Collection Workshop (HP & IM)

• Collective statement on agreements to date between WASH Cluster participants and participating academics on a way forward

• Research questions narrowed and defined

• Allocation of concept notes on various topics to move the agenda forward The hygiene promotion equipment and communication box has been completed. Points for Action:

• Anyone who has contacts for potential HP Mentors should send them to Lucy Russell for review and inclusion in roster Lurussell@oxfam.org.uk.

• LSHTM will disseminate the PoUWT literature review / survey report to the WASH Cluster as soon as finalized (repeated from above under section VIII).

XIV - Information Management Training Rationale of the project There is a need for a more efficient and effective WASH response to emergencies, with better utilization of resources. There is also the WASH Clusters responsibility for IM per the IASC Operational Guidance Note on IM to ensure there is sufficient capacity within the sector. The function of the IM tools should be to: Collate, analyze and summarize the following:

� WASH conditions (severity of need) � WASH cluster capacity (agencies & response) � Gaps – specific needs but no response � Cluster progress in addressing needs

Update The tools developed by the project allow for rapid and flexible assessment design; comparison across areas with greater objectivity; to know who is doing what where; access to information on the evolution and impact of the global response to the emergency. Agencies will need a WASH Cluster Coordinator, an IM person/team and mapping software for these tools to be effectively used. The 4 main tools are the:

1. IRA (tri-Cluster initiative) 2. WASH Survey Tool (input agreed key indicators; it then generates Assessment checklist, HH tally sheets,

Data entry sheets)

24

3. Agency reporting template 4W 4. WASH Data Tool (input data entry sheets, agency reporting template; generates information on needs,

capacity, 4W and gaps) The key indicators should be agreed at the first Cluster meeting (whether 5 or 20-30) as there needs to be some standardization. Agencies can then add their own data as well. There is a key assumption that all agencies will share the results of the assessments and generated maps. The tool outputs will be tables and maps in real time. While the end user will be working with Excel, the underlying database is Access. Next steps include:

• Training of information managers (the first training will be March 9-11, 2009)

• Creating a roster of information managers(the recruitment ad will go out shortly)

• Addressing global, regional, and country level considerations

• Recruitment of an IM person for emergency response to serve as the 4th member of the RRT

• Addressing cross-Cluster issues (e.g. the health Cluster is interested in using the same structure and it’s easy to add new indicators and translation

Discussion points included: Roll out of IM tools The IM tools are being rolled out through immediate deployment and not through field testing. A member of the Steering group and an IT consultant/IM person (as part of the RRT) would need to go to the field to deal with issues arising. A 4th member of the RRT (IM) would working with REWAs and rolling out the IM tools and building capacity at country level when not deployed. This is the current thinking on building IM capacity overall, at country level and supporting IM in response. The idea for the IM tools at the country level is that to build capacity, countries need to own their own tools and data and therefore should be able to adapt existing materials. In Pakistan and Myanmar, for example, only a small percentage of data was actually used to inform thinking/decision-making (30% in Myanmar). Generally this is because there was too much information and no consensus on what the key indicators should be. While the IM tools are not the complete answer to this problem or the only approach. The broad consensus was that the tools were very useful and well done, but that data analysis at field level is still weak and that rolling out the tools effectively will be key to resolving some of the issues around this. Broader context in which the WASH IM tools sit The WASH IM tools are stand-alone tools, but in the long-term, Neil Bauman is working with the Shelter Cluster and OCHA and WASH is influencing the direction that OCHA is moving. OCHA’s role is to support IM and information sharing across all sectors, though to date they are still defining what this means and how to do it. A common multi-sector needs assessment is needed (supported by the IASC guidance). Part of OCHA's role is information-sharing across Clusters, but without a common platform, this initiative has not moved forward. Ideally OCHA should bring together all IM tools across all the Clusters, but this will be a major challenge (e.g. the health, nutrition, WASH effort with the IRA is a case in point – the health Cluster became very involved with it to the detriment of its own sector assessments). OCHA will need to lead within the IM taskforce. Other country-level initiatives include McRAM and VTA. Rapid Assessment Tool (RAT) v. Comprehensive Assessment Tool (CAT) The balance of the 2 tools is can be a complex question, but ideally the CAT should be used in all situations (downside is loss of time and need for coordination). However there are times when the RAT is more appropriate

25

for smaller areas or to get a very rough idea over a larger one. The 2 tools can also be put together in a pragmatic way. In all cases, close consultation is needed with the Cluster Coordinator. Tools going forward Additional or optional generation of information or reports will be a question for the Steering group and the consultant for phase 2 of the project as the funds have been used for phase 1.

• There is no agreement on the tally sheets for the household level.

• Other types of information critical for a Cluster Coordinator are inputs into flash appeals, funded and unfunded agency activities.

Issues arising:

• How do you define an approach to IM when operational agencies want to come in a do a fast assessment?

• How do you effectively build capacity at country level to analyze data and to use it effectively? Points for Action:

• Everyone is asked to circulate the call for the IM Roster as soon as possible.

• IRC, Oxfam, CAST to finalize discussions on 4th RRT member for IM.

• IRC, Oxfam, CAST to investigate how IM tools / initiatives can be brought together for all the Clusters.

• IRC, Oxfam, CAST to discuss and define Phase 2, Project 2: IM julian.parker@theirc.org.

XV - WASH Cluster Learning paper (project 7) Update

• At the country level, 7 evaluations have been done, including the Myanmar review which will be completed shortly.

• Some recommendations have already been carried out and these will be further disseminated through the learning workshop.

• The meta-analysis has been challenging for several reasons

• Comments on the report are welcome. Please input as soon as possible in order to finalize it.

• A performance review is being developed for 12 different stakeholders as well as a final evaluation for each country.

An analysis of the experience thus far (these factors are interlinked in the ToR) identified the following:

• That partnership is key especially at the beginning otherwise there will be no Cluster. o E.g. in Mynamar there was no IM support, no standard assessment forms no database for 4W

making it very difficult to get responding agencies on board with the Cluster or to share information and data. It took 6.5 months to set up IM systems. Agencies had gone into the delta with no internet connections and therefore no communication. There is also no designated government department for WASH. The added value of the Cluster would have been very important for more effective response. Agencies should have been entering the country and having immediate access to 4W.

Summary of results

• Cluster Coordination Capacity has clearly been developed in the WASH sector

• Information Management is still an important challenge

• Development of effective partnerships at country level is critical

• Coherent roll-out needs strong global – country linkages and increased inter-cluster coordination

• Operation, maintenance and funding of initiatives at global and country levels is a major consideration http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clusters%20pages/WASH/Implementation%20of%20the%20WASH%20Cluster%20Approach%20-%20Final%20Draft.pdf

26

Myanmar example In Myanmar the HC chaired the meeting and led on the recovery and preparedness plans for the country. The challenges in IM were linked in many cases to capacity building, making IM training for local staff crucial. The area affected by cyclone Nargis has a widely scattered population, meaning that local Clusters needed to be replicated as there was no transport, communication, real-time online data and unclear roles and responsibilities of the various Clusters. There was also no effort at participatory or community approaches and villages were surveyed multiple times with no notification of local people. Many simply bypassed the Cluster damaging accountability and credibility of the Cluster. Joint cross-cutting issues It was not possible for the Cluster to take on Compliance with agreed standard, but when local government takes over, they will have to enforce standards. Myanmar Lessons learned There had suggestion that country level Cluster do self-evaluation in conjunction with REWAs early on. In Myanmar this exercise happened after 6 months. A lesson learned exercise would have better informed decisions and identified gaps and needs and which agencies were planning on responding in the initial phase only v. those with longer timelines.

• REWAs should better coordinate with the GWC in cases where there is not enough awareness of local level responsibilities of partners, role of the Cluster etc.

• Benchmarking tools and assistance with mentoring/coaching for capacity building needs would have also positively contributed to the effectiveness of the Cluster Approach.

Discussion points included: Evaluation v. monitoring and impact

• Real time monitoring/response should not be confused with evaluations e.g. if Aquatabs have been distributed, having someone check to see if they were used correctly. Regular monitoring such as this should automatically be built into any response.

• Normally an independent person comes in to a response to see how things are going. At times this could be a governmental agency on the ground. This kind of monitoring role for the Cluster is dangerous if it is seen as the ‘evaluating’ partners. It should be the role of local authorities to comply with standards, though a technical specialist is still needed.

• It is too soon to tell in most cases where an evaluation has been carried out what impact if any the performance of the Cluster has on beneficiaries (timeframes are too short). The link between the performance framework and impact is tenuous at best. One of the issues that need further discussion is how accountability comes into the picture in a constructive way.

• Monitoring and evaluation is a larger, cross-cutting issue that ECHO and other donors were looking at in October 2008. At that donors’ meeting, many of the same 10 recommendations were brought up. These discussions are ongoing.

• It has been very useful at global level to have good mutual indicators across Clusters and then move to jointly do work together.

Replication of the WASH Learning project and evaluations

• WASH is the only Cluster to have come this far in the learning process. It does not appear that any of the other Clusters have a similar project, including health and nutrition. Education has approached WASH about using the same framework and adapting the materials. Education is free to adapt the materials and the

27

software is available for use by other Clusters. It is not yet known what the overall Cluster evaluation will say about M&E/learning.

• WASH has had some strong links with the Shelter Cluster in the past including common indicators, but at times these are tenuous or could be stronger. WASH worked with Shelter in the performance framework and both Clusters worked well together in Bangladesh.

Mainstreaming learning and good practice

• The mainstreaming of good practice into the trainings already developed should be incorporated by the REWAs who have the best opportunity for integrating these kinds of lessons into learning events. The REWAs are already doing a lot of this kind of integration at the country level.

o All of the lessons learned have been incorporated into the Cluster Coordinator handbook, except perhaps those recommendations related to emergency preparedness.

o The WASH sector strategy has also been included.

• As all or most of the trainings/tools have come out at the same time, the capacity of the REWAs to roll them all out at once may be a problem. If this regional capacity can be increased, then it should be for the time being.

The role of funding in capacity building for the Cluster

• There is generally a weak understanding of the Cluster at the field level. ECHO and DFID have projects promoting the Cluster Approach at a broader level.

• DFID has had a 4 year project with 8 NGOs to promote humanitarian reform, of which the Cluster Approach is a small part. The project has been pushing these NGOs to reform to access more funding and to more fully participate.

• ECHO is now moving into the next phase of its capacity building programs, emphasizing the need to share information with local NGOs/local partners to improve the possibility of Cluster Coordinators come from these organizations. ECHO has also put most of its capacity building funds into UN agencies and the Red Cross. The fund facility/basket fund for NGOs is now much less than what is available for the UN/Red Cross. The ceiling for NGOs is currently being reviewed ($150,000). There are totally different channels for the 2 types of agencies.

• ACF is mainstreaming the Cluster and this and other initiatives should be supported, though some agencies have very different understandings of what mainstreaming means than what has been expressed during the meeting.

Going forward

• Humanitarian Exchange has expressed interest in publishing the learning paper. The learning should still be integrated where appropriate into the materials developed.

Issues arising

• How to bring in accountability to monitoring and evaluation during and after an emergency response in an effective way, bearing in mind roles and responsibilities on the ground and the need for technical people to be involved.

• While DFID and ECHO have programs to promote humanitarian reform and build capacity within the NGO community, it may be a duplication of work to disseminate and promote the Cluster Approach, causing confusion.

Points for Action:

• Comments on Lessons-Learned Paper should be provided ASAP to Louise l.boughen@aahuk.org.

• ACF-UK to finalize and disseminate Myanmar Review.

28

• ACF-UK, CAST, REWAs to investigate how other Clusters are approaching similar evaluations / performance framework (part. ESC).

XVI - Environment (project 11) Jock Baker from CARE International gave the presentation. The NGO ProAct is working with CARE on the project. Overview of how the IASC envisioned environment Initially the IASC had envisioned an Environment Cluster which would have worked with all the other Clusters to incorporate ‘green’ concerns into programming. Subsequently, it was decided that environment would be treated as a cross-cutting issue and mainstreamed across all sectors that way. There is also an effort to move to green purchasing across 5 Clusters (these are talks are only preliminary). The Shelter Cluster has been relatively more environmentally focused. In WASH environment has been relatively simplified and was to be for WASH specialists. Which approach makes more sense? Update Phase 1 of the environment project has been a scoping exercise/policy paper which is now complete. Going forward there is not broad consensus on what phase 2 should be, what it should set out to do, whether the recommendations are incorporated into other projects, whether environment and DRR merge or whether a phase 2 is needed at all. Discussion points included:

• Environment as a rule is not a priority on the ground and not systematically integrated into WASH programming.

• WASH staff tend not to be environment experts and so any tools need to address intended audiences very carefully and be practical in nature ‘how to’ with indicators.

• Integrating environment recommendations into the existing tools and materials developed by other projects will take time.

• In terms of technical guidance, WASH’s carbon footprint can be reduced, but not by as much as in logistics.

• It may make sense to link with the technical learning project with a common format and communication materials, or to merge with DRR looking at strategic issues. There may also be overlap with TSS, e.g. on an issue like groundwater exploitation.

• The greatest need is for field practitioners, and a menu of alternatives might be better absorbed by WASH staff.

• What should WASH Cluster environment guidelines cover and target?

• The Gates Foundation is piloting environmental recommendation in 5 countries with 6 INGOs.

• There is a Climate change conference in Copenhagen, for which the WASH Cluster may need a position paper.

• Adding new environment indicators to the CAT should not cause delay.

• Explore links to risk-based approaches concept paper.

• Explore if REWAs think there should be regional environment workshops with specific technical experts.

• Is there a need for an urban environment working group? The Steering Group for phase 2 will be… IFRC, IRC (TBC), UNICEF (Sarah Bish, water and environment). Issues arising

• Environment is consistently deprioritized or left out of WASH emergency response and, if too technical, not well understood by WASH staff.

o What are the barriers to environment being left out? o How best, then to integrate environment in a measurable, practical way for field practitioner?

29

o And what form would phase 2 need to take to ensure that this happens? What should a set of guidelines look like?

Recommendations for phase 2

1. Environment needs to be in the WASH Cluster policy paper, starting with a 1 page concept note. 2. WASH Cluster guidelines should be practical, concise and interesting. 3. Specific technical guidance may also be needed, building on current links with other work. 4. Environment should be integrated into existing Cluster tools and indicators (EIA) 5. WASH should coordinate with other Clusters on this.

Points for Action:

• Steering Group and all those interested to define Phase 2, Project 11: Environment (ProAct, Karen Walker to complete 1-page Concept Note), and investigate links with DRR karen.walker@proactnetwork.org.

XVII - Project 6: training for capacity building – phase 2 Mohammed Ali presented the work on T4CB. Overview Phase 1 has been completed and there now needs to be some definition of phase 2 and what is most useful to focus on and achieve in the next 10 months. There will not be a phase 3. Discussion of needs and ways forward:

• Translations for current trainings

• Identification of vulnerabilities and sensitization of trainers

• Accountability to beneficiaries (currently a weak area, accountability integrated into the HP learning module)

• Continued interaction with TSS project

• Presentation of information in a format beyond power points (e.g. in the case of the Somalia training); getting beyond short training courses, adapting to how people really learn and using other methodologies

• Sustainability of the trainings beyond 2010; how can the trainings developed be linked to academia? If linked to universities, then a mapping of appropriate institutions

• Mentoring or on the job training

• Developing e-learning courses (with Illuminate or similar software/electronic platforms)

• Video-based learning materials, or video-based elements of learning materials to be posted on iTunes, YouTube

• Creating materials that complement HP work and integrating HP methods into T4CB materials (e.g. social mobilization methods)

• Linking with Red Cross volunteers

• Updating of current WASH Cluster materials/tools

• Understanding humanitarianism

• A menu of modules to meet different needs (but must be feasible in the time given)

• Inclusion of technical learning case studies from project 7 and other links to learning

• Trainings, awareness-raising and institutionalization of the Cluster Approach outside of the WASH Cluster

• Using the RRT to roll out some of the training

• Waiting for the learning needs assessment to be completed before launching phase 2 of the T4CB project

• Further discussion about knowledge management and whether a ‘project 16’ is needed to disseminate and roll out all the other tools and to ensure that responders internalize and apply the learning

Issues arising How far does this project go? Should it also seek to monitor impact and change at field level?

30

Points for Action:

• RedR, CAST to define Phase 2, Project 6: T4CB. Inputs and suggestions for additional modules should be sent to Mohammed Ali mohammed.ali@redr.org.

XVIII – Technical Support Services (project 9) Dinesh Shrestha and Carmen Paradiso gave the presentation. Update The purpose of this phase of the project is to create a framework and scope out the requirements and not to create an actual platform/service. Input from the Steering group is needed to clarify certain issues and to move forward in agreed directions. TSS providers have been interviewed and all are development organizations with the exception of RedR. To date, 49 responses to the field surveys have been received and Carmen will likely be travelling to Sudan and/or Pakistan to discuss needs with local governments.

• E.g. IRC has a portable library/field guide, WHO has a library in a box. Issues arising that remain to be resolved:

• Type of platform to recommend, including relevant services

• Language issues

• Defining specialist needs and whether to build expert rosters

• Sustainability issues of such a platform/service and linkages to other Cluster projects

XIX - Future vision of the WASH Cluster

Part 1: Overview of the history of the WASH Cluster to date (see Annex 1) The purpose of the timeline is to see various milestones in context and how certain things happened. It is also a useful review for those attending this meeting who may not have been present at the first meetings of the WASH Cluster in 2006-2007. Points for Action:

• CAST to capture timeline electronically.

Part 2: Changing roles at the global, regional, country level Overview As the Global WASH Cluster progresses past the ‘project phase,’ the changes of each of the respective roles at the 3 levels need to be charted out going forward in the short (2 years), medium (5 years) and long runs (10 years). E.g. what will the responsibility of the Global Cluster Lead be in the future? With the changing roles, what will system-wide preparedness, increased technical capacity and more predictable inter-agency response look like? Shifting responsibilities (see JM graph) It is envisioned that while technical support from regional and global levels may decrease somewhat and that countries should be taking on their own plans and finding resources. The regional and global levels can and will

31

continue to provide support, but the process will be primarily demand driven e.g. the examples from South and East Asia show that in some areas demand for support is quite high and in others it is not. The next 10 years: Where will the global and country Clusters be in 10 years? What will be going on at the regional level? The following is based on discussions by the group. Country level: 2019

• Country Clusters will be owned by national/local governments in countries that are not considered fragile states. For those that are fragile states, the government will not own or necessarily be party to the Cluster.

• The public health Cluster will take one multiple roles and responsibilities.

• Country Clusters will coordinate partnerships beyond WASH.

• IM at the country level will be handled by OCHA (including multi-sectoral assessments).

• All preparedness and capacity building tools will be in use and mainstreamed.

• The Global Cluster will still have control of tools/hardware and rolling out to regional and country levels. The country Clusters are the source for accountability and feedback to the regions and global Cluster and drive demand for tools.

• Country Clusters would conduct impact reviews.

• Preparedness and capacity mapping/building and building Cluster awareness.

• Ensuring the systematic adoption and use of the Cluster tools. Issues arising:

• How much control the UN would have over the Cluster remains unclear.

• In non-fragile states, would government become POLR?

• There needs to be a framework for ownership transfer to the country Clusters, including bilateral funding to country Clusters.

Regional level: 2019

• Networking will still be going on (there are not now, nor will there be regional Clusters), but these networks will need support and are not envisioned to be self-perpetuating.

• Dialogue will be virtual and regional networks will be information-sharing conduits (this would also north-south ownership).

• Regional oversight will still be needed and support/facilitation in areas such as surge will remain.

• Cluster roles and responsibilities would be clear and understood (SOP).

• Regions would be responsible for Information dissemination in: knowledge, learning, investment, institutional memory.

• The regions would develop and maintain organizational adaptation and adjustment.

• Different agencies would rotate responsibilities, though the functions would still sit with one body.

• If the Cluster is mainstreamed within an agency, then this is just the way business is done, no additional funding is forseen for these functions.

• Government will not have a lead role at regional level. The UN will oversee learning and be accountable for impact.

• Regions may play a new role as well when it comes to non-traditional stakeholders and public private partnerships. These are predicted to increase in importance and relevance to the Cluster over the next decade.

Issues arising:

• The role of the regional networks in raising funds at the regional level (as many donors have regional offices and disburse funds this way) remains unclear and requires further discussion.

Global level

32

• The Global Cluster will remain dynamic, flexible and open to learning and look quite different from today.

• While country Clusters will be the main drivers, the Global Cluster will continue to work on issues such as ensuring country level response capacity (HR, surge), quality control (evaluation, benchmarking), strategy, act as a conduit for information management and the HRTWS and continue to update, improve, disseminate and mainstream tools as necessary; and filling gaps where necessary.

• The Global Cluster will also lead/oversee KM in general, monitoring and accountability for impact, emerging issues and ensuring a regional approach.

• The vision of the Global Cluster going forward should be determined by country-led demand.

• Longer-term development coordination mechanism to breakdown between emergency and development barriers (DRR) and lead the process on working with others.

Part 3: Discussion and gap identification Remaining gaps and challenges for the Global WASH Cluster

• What should be continued?

• Responsibilities of partner roles/clarify responsibilities

• RRT: scale up available personnel in case of multiple crises

• Resource mobilization: challenge of how to manage fundraising at country level

• Mainstreaming emergency preparedness into government structures: what is the role of the Global Cluster in strengthening government capacity?

• “Unit cost” methodologies e.g. optimizing cost-effectiveness in our approaches and interventions

• Demand-led approaches e.g. sanitation marketing, early recovery

• “WASH safety plans” (re. water safety plans)

• Maintain flexibility in WASH Cluster enabling rapid response

• Maintain dialogue with non-Cluster agencies and how best to communicate our good Cluster model Group 1: Continuing role of the GWC and the way forward

Recommendation Who will be responsible?

Within 2 years?

Within 5 years?

Priority (in ‘votes’ by dots)

Comments

Standards guidance (including quality standards) for accountability and review (global)

Global WASH Cluster

X 4 Link with SPHERE updating

Training: ongoing and updating Region or country

X

Clarify/define partner responsibilities/ ToR at country level and for regional level

Global Cluster/ CAST, but for regional level?

X 2

RRT/surge capacity

• Increase capacity

• Diversify capacity (IM support)

UNICEF leads X 7 Ongoing, but needs updating

Resource mobilization: how we handle fundraising

CAST 4 agencies

X

Mainstreaming preparedness in government capacity

Suggest: region /country

X

Water/WASH safety/risk-assessment approach/management

Global, lead agency? Handover to region

X 6

Accountability re lesson learning including case studies

ACF X 5 Ongoing/ continuing

Rationalization of project outputs including mapping

Global Cluster agencies

X 10 NEW

33

Group 2:

Recommendation Who will be responsible?

Within 2 years?

Within 5 years?

Priority (in ‘votes’ by dots)

Comments

Regional role and capacity 3 Integrated trainings (3D) and roll out (and aggregated)

X X 3

Strategize change-management process and consolidate: plan and personnel for roll out of all programs by target audience

CAST, change management team

X (now) 1

Monitoring: Integration, Relevance, Learning, Tool: rolled out, review relevance/ ?, impact

Independent evaluator

X (start now) X 6

Help – knowledge – understanding (OCHA) web platform

Content manager CAST

X X 6

e-learning e-learning manager (new post)

X X 11

Overall induction Steering group X NEW 2 page idiot guide to WASH, including tools guide

CAST sub-group

Now 2

List of WASH Focal points including format

CAST/REWAs Now

Online forum Content manager, IM working group

Now 1

Centralized translation CAST X X 1 Technical guidelines for cold climates

Technical working group with learning project

New IT applications X X Prioritization of tool roll out and workshop, planning

Global Cluster Steering group

Group 3: Response/surge capacity

Recommendation Who will be responsible?

Within 2 years?

Within 5 years?

Priority (in ‘votes’ by dots)

Comments

Strategy Global WASH Cluster

National level response capacity: HR – job exchange/ shadowing, technical and humanitarian training/ inductions Priority/high risk countries, Other countries

Project 6? All agencies

X X 7

RRT: review, sustain, expand UNICEF and NGO team (CARE, ACF, Oxfam) others

X X

Agency preparedness guidelines on reprioritization for emergency response e.g. backstopping surge staff

Concern? X 3

Seek out, build capacity and promote local training/ ownership options e.g. govt., universities, NGOs, local training organizations

Project 6, REWAs, national Clusters

X X 13

Investigate getting people into the sector and keeping them:

• agency barriers,

NEW discussion (WASH

X 2

34

• links between universities/ training options,

• roster organizations

• private sector

Cluster)

Group 4: KM for WASH in emergency

Recommendation Who will be responsible?

Within 2 years?

Within 5 years?

Priority (in ‘votes’ by dots)

Comments

Define approach/concept note for KM to include: (Audience: field emergency support staff)

TSS phase 2 X 10 Need to consider national capacities (government, local NGO community)

Cluster field guide TSS phase 2 X 2 Compile the libraries already available

TSS phase 2 X 2

Learning exchange (better than Google Groups)

TSS phase 2 X 3

Knowledge manager TSS phase 2 X 1

Part 4: Knowledge management, project 16? The single most important theme during the WASH Cluster meeting was defining the way forward for the (Global) WASH Cluster now that the ‘project’ phase is starting to wind down. While going through this exercise, it became clear that ‘knowledge management’ is going to be a driver for the work already done, for sustainability of the WASH Cluster tools and for ensuring that knowledge is gained, internalized and applied in the field for improved humanitarian response. A number of tools (approximately 13 sets) have so far been produced by the global Cluster. How effectively these are rolled out and applied in the field will depend on how the Cluster manages the knowledge generated from the work of the last 3 years. Overview Knowledge management (KM) in this context refers broadly to dissemination (roll out), storage and use of information/tools generated from the work to date from the WASH Cluster projects. If well structured, a system can overcome a number of problems. Ideally trainings, tools and resources should be rolled out together in a complementary way (otherwise there is the prospect that the people the Cluster are trying to reach would need to attend 13 separate trainings which could take years and is not practicable). Conceptual architecture Definitions

• Real time crisis information

• Global preparedness tools and learning/best practice

• Managing the above

• Tools from the list below

Target audiences

• WASH person from field agency in field

• Donors

• Cluster lead

• Cluster Coordinators

• Government (local and central)

Needs

• Technical v. non-technical

• Simple documents with links (simplicity v. complexity in terms of the amount of information stored)

• Crisis-specific briefing

• Need to map customer base

• Case studies of good WASH Cluster operation

• Training interventions

Potential architecture

35

Information library: national, global level information including capacity Tool box: Processes and access (group 2) Live information and results of tools: management of data and results in real time for application in the field (e.g. 4W)

Priorities for action in KM and roll out of tools/trainings Target Tool In-

country CCT RO Global Development

program How (list below)

Responsibility

HP X X 1,7,9,3,4 IM X X 3,4,1 Capacity/gap X X X 3 Performance review tool

X X X X 4,3

HIV/AIDS guidelines X Environment guidelines

X

Technical briefings X Early recovery guidelines

X

Roles/ accountability X Advocacy X Cluster awareness tools X DRR X Contingency planning X Training materials X Needs assessment X Handbook X

1. Web platform 2. E-learning 3. Workshops (sub-national, national, regional, global, ToT) 4. Technical training (content TWIG) 5. Communication campaign/advocacy 6. Briefings induction/ToR 7. CD Rom, Flash drives 8. Integration of policy/strategy 9. Translated printed materials 10. SPHERE

Discussion points included:

• The linkages between each of the architecture categories were not discussed and the consensus was that it needed much more thought.

• The amount of information available will need balance. One side is the desire to upload everything and be comprehensive clearinghouse, on the other is the need to have fast, easy access for field staff

• OCHA will be launching a new platform in place of humanitarian reform within the next 2 weeks (soft launch, field information services).

• Additional kinds of information need to be stored in whatever format is ultimately chosen such as beneficiary feedback and impact on populations (accountability) and tracking that information

• There is debate on how much information to store: clearinghouse v. speed and ease of use for a field practitioner

• Project 16 would rationalize the project tools and outputs, emphasizing linkages and synergies, mainstreaming lessons learned and risk assessment management approaches.

36

• 3-4 NGOs to monitor how all of this gets rolled out – steering group to support cast

• 3D matrix of tools by target group including language and means of sharing

• TSS as a service provider – this is not currently the case, but that information would also need to be stored.

• People in different cultural contexts share differently, so they need multiple options Points for Action:

• CAST to facilitate investigation on whether a ‘Project’ is needed to consolidate/roll out/ ensure training for all GWC project tools.

• WVI (Rod Jackson)1-page Concept Note on Knowledge Management and what this means for the GWC.

• CAST, RedR, WVI (all TBC) to explore Google Groups and other file-sharing software as quick tools for information-sharing and discussion.

• ALL (CAST to initiate/facilitate?)Explore how new IASC web platform fits with ongoing discussions on KM and other needs.

• ALL (CAST to facilitate) to investigate how WASH can assist other Clusters in rolling out their projects and sharing information.

Future role and tasks of the WASH Cluster Summary Summary of priorities going forward: Those activities related to KM came out the most strongly in the group work. 1. Define approach/concept note for KM to include: (Audience: field emergency support staff). 2. E-learning 3. Rationalization of project outputs including mapping 4. Seek out, build capacity and promote local training/ ownership options e.g. govt., universities, NGOs, local

training organizations. The discussion will continue by email on the details of exactly how this work will go forward.

XXI - Closing • ECHO expressed their support for the work of the WASH Cluster and for moving forward with an

ambitious workplan and good cooperation between UN/NGOs. The WASH Cluster was encouraged to maintain its enthusiasm for the work ahead, but to think carefully about the projects it chooses to undertake. ECHO has its own accountability to European taxpayers.

• DFID expressed their support for the WASH Cluster and its work and encouraged a continued and open dialogue by email.

• Clarissa Brocklehurst thanked everyone and was positive about future steps of the Global Cluster.

• Jean McCluskey thanked Paul Sherlock for his work and dedication to UNICEF and the Global Cluster as he officially retires from UNICEF on 31 January 2009.

• Jean also thanked the Federation for their generosity in hosting the Cluster meeting and David Alford for all his hard work in preparing for it.

PARTICIPANT LIST Jean Lapegue ACF Christophe Lanord Consultant HRTWS Louise Boughen ACF-UK Joseph Kuitems Consultant Learning Karine Deniel ACF Spain

37

Paul Shanahan CARE International Andrea Oess CARE International (partial attendance, RRT) Erik Rottier CARE Nederland David Stone ProAct Karen Walker ProAct Thomas Handzel CDC Jo Mason Concern Ross Tomlinson CRS Rachel Lavy DfID Dennis Heidebroek ECHO Michele Lebrun ECHO Uli Jaspers IFRC Robert Fraser IFRC Libertad Gonzales IFRC William Carter IFRC Ben Harvey IRC Julian Parker IRC Dorothy Peprah IRC Neil Bauman Consultant WASH, Shelter Clusters Daniele Lantagne LSHTM Mugur Dumitrache Mercy Corp Luke Doktor NCA Marc Cutts OCHA Andy Bastable Oxfam Marion O’Reilly Oxfam Lucy Russell Oxfam Suzanne Ferron Consultant, Oxfam Toby Gould RedR Mohammed Ali RedR Mari Williams Tearfund Pierre Robert Tearfund Frank Greaves Tearfund Nick Willson UNHCR Carmen Paradiso UNHCR Dinesh Shrestha UNHCR Paul Sherlock UNICEF Jean McCluskey UNICEF David Alford UNICEF Andrew Parker UNICEF Clarissa Brocklehurst UNICEF Louise Maule UNICEF Richard Luff UNICEF James Shepherd-Barron UNICEF Roberto Saltori UNICEF Tiya Habachy UNICEF Karim Jouda UNWRA Osama Maher WHO/EMRO Yves Chartier WHO Rod Jackson WVI