call to action for vawg accountability review … 7...call to action for vawg accountability review...

\]

Prepared for InterAction

May 15, 2014

Call to Action for VAWG Accountability Review Workshop Report

Interaction GBV Working Group Call to Action Review Workshop Report

i

Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Opening ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Review of Consultancy Scope of Work ........................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Workshop Objectives, Outputs, and Agenda ............................................................................................. 1

1.6 Background: Overview of Accountability ................................................................................................... 2

2. Commitments Mapping Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Presentation of Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Feedback and Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 4

3. Essential Elements of Accountability Mechanisms for the CtA................................................................... 5

3.1 Discussion on Accountability for Individual Organization-Level Commitments....................... 5

3.2 Discussion on Accountability for Collective Impact or System-Level Change ............................ 8

3.3 Conclusions or Ideas to Take Forward into “Next Steps” for Accountability ............................ 10

4. Next Steps for IA Working Group .......................................................................................................................... 11


ii

List of Acronyms CtA Call to Action GBV Gender-based Violence GBV AoR GBV Area of Responsibility of the Global Protection Cluster GHD Good Humanitarian Donorship IA InterAction ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IOs International Organizations RTE R TOR Terms of Reference UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees USG United States Government VAWG Violence Against Women and Girls WRC Women’s Refugee Commission


1

1. Introduction and Background 1.1 Opening Jessica Lenz, Senior Protection Manager from Interaction opened the workshop by presenting the objectives of the work being done with the consultants and in the workshop. These included to:

1. Come together collectively, as an NGO community, to discuss the commitments, their barriers and their strengths. As well as ways to move towards an accountability process so that the NGO community can feed into the USG visioning process.

2. Identify essential elements of a potential accountability framework and the elements it could include (depending on the visioning processes that are on-going) so there is accountability between each other and also to the affected populations

3. Identify the next steps for the NGO community To that end, the scope of work for the consultancy included: i) Mapping of the Call to Action (CtA) commitments, ii) Developing a paper analyzing the commitments and iii) Designing and implementing this workshop to discuss what accountability for the Call to Action could look like. InterAction acknowledged that there are other processes around the Call to Action that are also ongoing – such as the PRM-led Visioning Process and the GBV AoR Governance Review and that, though these other processes are not necessarily linked, the IA consultancy (paper and workshop) serves as one of the inputs to help the NGO community consolidate its thinking around the Call to Action and input into these processes. The full list of participants in Annex 1.

1.2 Review of Consultancy Scope of Work Oxu Solutions is a small consulting firm made up of associated consultants who have all been field practitioners. The firm’s focus is on the nexus between strategy, measurement, and management systems, where associates specifically work on:

Strategic visioning/planning Measurement frameworks/evaluations Management systems/operational planning

The scope of the consultancy was maximum 25 person days. The specific objectives of the consultancy were to:

Map the Call to Action Commitments Produce and analysis of the Commitments Design and implement a 1 day workshop to engage discussions around accountability

1.3 Workshop Objectives, Outputs, and Agenda The workshop objectives were reviewed as follows:


2

Workshop Objective:

To identify the essential elements of a potential accountability system for the Call to Action (from an NGO perspective)

To identify the next steps that the NGO community should take to build that system, including debates to resolve, objectives to develop and resources to draw on or other processes to link to

Participants agreed that persistent debates currently going on in the sector will not be a focus of discussion for the day (i.e. the elements of VAWG or GBV prevention). Workshop participants agreed that discussions for the day should focus on how the NGO community can contribute to moving the CtA forward. The facilitator then reviewed the agenda (attached as Annex 2).

1.6 Background: Overview of Accountability To set the stage for the day’s discussions, the Oxu Solutions facilitators began the session by outlining some of the necessary elements of accountability and opening discussions to look at some accountability mechanisms that currently exist. The definition of accountability is understood to be: a relationship between the power-holder (account-provider) and the delegator (account-demander). The four elements to this accountability relationship are i) setting standards, ii) getting information about actions, iii) making judgments about appropriateness and iv) sanctioning unsatisfactory performance.1 Generally, accountability is an imperfect process that is often talked about, but not effectively delivered. For accountability to be effective, it requires a set of clearly defined responsibilities. With clearly defined responsibilities, it is possible to:

a. Measure if responsibilities have been fulfilled (when they are not clearly defined, there can be argument as to whether they were fulfilled or not)

b. Implement a clear assessment mechanism that can measure or track what it purports to measure

c. Put appropriate enforcement measures in place that include specific and appropriate consequences for weak fulfillment or non-commitment (e.g. if/if not fulfilled what happens)

Participants named some examples of accountability mechanisms that they could keep in mind as examples throughout the day’s discussions. These included:

1. UN resolution 1612 Child Protection in Conflict – The weakness of this mechanism is that it has become seen as a child soldier monitoring mechanism. However, the strengths include that it has defined triggers (i.e. child soldier presence), assessment mechanisms and reporting.

2. Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles (GHD) – A mechanism for peer review was implemented in pilot countries with an evaluation and follow-up to discuss findings. Participants noted that though this was imperfect, it did generate follow-up and a framework that could be looked at.

1 Schedler, A. (1999) ‘Conceptualizing Accountability’, in A. Schedler, L. Diamond and M. Plattner (eds), The Self Restraining

State: Power and accountability in new democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. {From IRC paper, “Accountability in Service Delivery: Basic Framework and Case Study.”


3

Ultimately, when developing accountability mechanisms, the key questions to look at are: who is accountable to whom and for what? Participants therefore discussed how these questions are applied to looking at accountability for the CtA and the commitments made under it. Specifically i) Whom is holding whom to account and for what? – Internal v. external accountability and ii) Relative to what? – Individual capacity to implement specific commitments or collective capacity to contribute to change/the CtA goals. Key elements to keep in mind throughout the discussions, therefore, are:

i. Whether actors want to hold each other to account for implementing their commitments (Who: Commitment maker to commitment maker. For what: Implementing the activity they said they would do) or

ii. Whether actors want to be held to account to some targeted higher level changes (Who: Commitment maker to commitment maker AND affected populations. For what: implementing the activities they said they would do AND that the achieved activities produced a change within the humanitarian system for improved collective action AND/OR ensuring those changes yielded positive changes for women and girls).

The afternoon sessions on accountability will be structured to answer these two different questions.

2. Commitments Mapping Analysis

2.1 Presentation of Findings The next session focused on presenting participants with the key findings from the commitments mapping and analysis drafted by the consultants. The objective of the session was to share this information with participants to:

i. Elicit their feedback on the findings (so that they could be refined to be as useful for NGO community members as possible) and

ii. Provide inputs that NGO participants could use when discussing possible accountability mechanisms in the later sessions

As per the TORs, the commitment mapping and analysis: i) examined the strengths, weaknesses and gaps of the Call to Action commitments; and ii) analyzed potential barriers to implementation of the commitments (for stakeholder groups as a collective, not for individual organizations). To complete this exercise, the consultants needed to ask themselves the following:

a. Should the analysis examine implementation or strategy/design of the commitments? And is it possible to do one without the other?

b. What are we measuring this against? And which inputs or frameworks to use when developing those measures?

c. How to address or assess questions of timeline and scale? d. How to map and measure impact (individual or collective) given the collective

nature of the CtA goals and the individual nature of the CtA commitments? To answer these questions and analyze the commitments, the consultants developed 5 lenses to


4

examine the commitments. After applying these lenses, some of the key findings were: 1. Compared against the original Puzzle Piece Mapping (done by DFID) and found some

differences – Especially under “right tools and mechanisms” where the re-map found that 21% rather than 12% of commitments come focus on tools.

2. Commitments largely reflect agencies’ current interventions (either at current levels or as scale ups) rather than new activities or innovations

3. Most commitments focus on the meso-system – 50% of which focus on organization-level internal changes

4. 57% of commitments specifically reference emergencies; the rest are general commitments or do not define their temporal focus

5. Only 18 of the 201 commitments make reference to funding (and some of the donor commitments are commitments to fund specific NGO activities also listed as commitments)

6. There is large variability among the commitments with some being specific, measurable and focused on small scale change, with others being broad, general or aspirational. This raised the questions of whether or not the commitments can come together to create change as a gestalt and if they are able to be measured and tracked within an accountability mechanism.

The consultants described the difficulties in developing and implementing the lenses of analysis given the variability and lack of specificity among many of the commitments. They highlighted that this made the categorization and mapping a subjective exercise and that this should therefore be validated or re-done by commitment making organizations in the future.

2.2 Feedback and Discussion In this session, participants were asked to give their feedback on the commitments mapping and analysis exercise in a plenary session.

The main elements of the discussion and feedback provided by participants focused on:

1. Funding: Participants noted that many of the commitments are at an organizational level, but there is lack of commitments of funding. A key concern raised was whether or not UN agencies and other organizations might say they can’t carry out their commitments if there is no money for organizational change.

2. Surge capacity: Participants raised the question as to whether the CtA it about doing more or about innovating to create a better response and whether or not commitments around surge capacities will have impacts if the other aspects of the CtA are not in place or are not

Group Discussion 1 (Plenary) To discuss in groups and present to Plenary:

Feedback on the analysis What is missing from the analysis? What is useful in the analysis?

What other information is available to help the NGO community to take forward the Call to Action (accountably)?

Commitments What commitments or types of commitments are missing? What should the NGO community advocate to add?


5

funded. 3. Existing work versus change and innovation: Participants noted that it is interesting to

look at the commitments to see which are “someone’s job” and which can lead to change on the ground and/or help more organizations feel comfortable doing this work. Participants noted there needs to be more of a push towards innovation and “getting the right programs.”

4. Focus: Participants questioned whether or not macro-policy level of commitments might have larger impacts on the micro-level commitments. Discussions included whether or not policy-level commitments might be the most important in order to move forward higher level change.

5. Accountability mechanisms: The point was made that INGOs made commitments that could be completed or achieved in a 1-year period and agreed to report back after that year and, therefore, there does not need to be an elaborate mechanism in place for that 1 year time period. There was concern from some participants that it was more important to focus on addressing donors’ commitments to the 12 principles from the Communique rather than implementation of the detailed 201 commitments listed.

Participants flagged that more information was needed from the analysis with regards to:

The percentage of commitments that are measureable (as input into the accountability discussions)

Which specific commitments are around funding and the breakdown of those Breakdown of learning, innovation, research and related issues

Prior to concluding the session, Beth Vann (independent consultant) gave a brief outline of the visioning process that she and WRC are leading on behalf of the USG as part of the work to move the CtA forward. Participants were asked to keep this in mind during the next discussions on accountability so that the NGO community can identify how they want to feed the results of these discussions into the upcoming process. The first consultation will be held in 2 weeks and the full roadmap – with accountability – will be done by September.

3. Essential Elements of Accountability Mechanisms for the Call to Action (CtA)

3.1 Discussion on Accountability for Individual Organization-Level Commitments This session focused on identifying those elements NGOs would like to see included in an accountability mechanism for the CtA if the mechanism is to track individual implementation of stated commitments (i.e. Did the organization do what it said it would?).


6

At the suggestion of participants, a 4th group was added: Donor Governments, focusing on the 12 commitments outlined in the Communiqué. The results of the exercise and discussions were shared with the larger group in plenary once the small working groups concluded. The main points that emerged from the small group discussions were: Group 1 – I-NGOs With many of the commitments it was difficult to determine who the duty bearer is/should be

and who they are/should be accountable to. There is a need to specify a duty bearer and a rights-holder for each commitment.

There are difficulties with terminology in the commitments, that make it difficult to answer the questions in the exercise (e.g. “promote” – what does that mean? Promote to who, how and for what? So how do you measure or track that?) Where the terminology is vague or the commitment is very broad, it is hard to tell what commitment makers meant when they made those commitments and, therefore, difficult to identify assessment or enforcement measures for those commitments (i.e. there might be an action plan for taking the commitments forward, but that is unknown)

There is a question as to whether these are the “right” commitments i.e. They might be necessary for the commitment making organization but, are they sufficient and necessary to create change for women and girls?

Group 2 – International Organizations (IOs) Responsibilities:

o It is difficult to indentify what accountability looks like for IOs and inter-agency for a because there are already questions of who they are accountable to both internally and externally (i.e. the AoR has members and co-leads so who are they accountable to?)

o Many of the commitments and commitment makers are interrelated so there needs to be more unpacking done with regards to who made the commitment, how, if there was funding, etc. and how those factors impact each of the stakeholders included in each of the commitments.

Assessment Mechanisms: o There should be a detailed work plan and funding plan related to each commitment

to help with assessment as well as ways to avoid duplication of commitments o There should be a learning agenda attached to each commitment

GROUP EXERCISE 1

Participants are divided into 3 groups: I-NGOs International Organizations (e.g. UN agencies, ICRC) Donor Governments

Reviewing the commitments for the assigned stakeholder group, select 3 commitments of differing types (as examples) and answer the following questions:

Defined responsibility: Who is accountable to whom for what? What assessment mechanisms might be appropriate? By whom? What kinds of consequences might work for this group? What general conclusions or recommendations (do you have) about

follow-up?


7

o It is important to define how to measure impact level for all of the commitments combined together and how stakeholders can be accountable to women and girls

Enforcement Measures: o “Naming and shaming” or “naming and praising” are both important. This can be

done via work plans and making these types of documents public to the I-NGO community (or others)

o Aligning incentives such as funding to implementation and/or completion of commitments could also be a “praising” mechanism

There is the question of how to achieve and demonstrate fulfilment of commitments beyond just saying “we did that” so that it can be demonstrably shown to contribute to higher-level change/impact for women and girls. I.e. When “x” is done, also looking at did beneficiaries receive “x,” were they in good condition and wanted or needed, etc. It is a struggle to determine how to measure the commitments even when beneficiaries have a way of reporting back.

There is also a lot of similar activities, so this raises the question as to whether or not there are duplications of efforts. There should be more coordination to leverage opportunities presented by the commitments.

Group 3 – Donor Governments, Commitments Like the other groups, also found that many of the commitments used vague language or

timelines and were hard to define. Many of them require more explanation and definition with regards to outputs (what is the actual expectation?).

There is a need for an assessment mechanism that looks like a financial tracking system as well as one that looks like an impact evaluation of programs. This could be a pilot that looks at specific countries and actors. It would also be helpful to understand the motivations behind donors’ financial commitments.

A number of donor groups already exist so donors should be accountable to their peers via these groups as well as to their tax payers and NGOs could play part of this role via advocacy work.

The question of how to involve donors in research or use research re “what works” as an advocacy tool for additional or directed funding was raised.

It would be helpful to have a global forum to revisit what progress has been made since these commitments have been made.

Group 4 – Donor Governments, 12 Commitments from the Communique It is important to have a better idea of what is meant by “programs” and “programming” to

assess what donors are really funding e.g. on the ground work versus coordination as well as how donors are providing the funding (e.g. through IOs or directly to NGOs) and then how to hold the organizations receiving funding to account for their actions/implementation (e.g. if UNHCR chooses to funds coordination rather than programs).

There was a concern that it is currently too easy for organizations to interpret “programming” in ways that support their existing programs/activities rather than improved actions or improved/new programs. The NGO community should therefore also define the “scope of programming” that should be included.

There is a need to specify the elements of “right action” so that these can be tracked and measured within the larger, broader global commitments. Examples include:

o Specific required policies o DART team deployments o Funding decisions per emergency phase

It is important to develop and implement some kind of financial tracking system to assess when


8

and where donor funding is going and how it is being distributed. These should be linked to a specific level of emergency declaration (i.e. Level 3 emergencies) and to existing mechanisms such as RTEs.

Like other groups, there is a sense that “naming and shaming” is important and should be complemented by “congratulations” when needed. Ways to do this include public reports and reviews of funding breakdowns and distributions.

It is important to ensure that principles get translated into practical programming in specific crises so there can be a process where – at regular intervals – donors are required to translate commitments into specific policies. In this case, “accountability” would focus on reporting they did that or not.

3.2 Discussion on Accountability for Collective Impact or System-Level Change This session focused on identifying those elements NGOs would like to see included in an accountability mechanism for the CtA if the mechanism is to track collective impact of the commitments (i.e. Is the CtA achieving the impacts it intends?). This session was originally structured using the same small-group methodology as the previous one but, at the request of the participants, was changed to a plenary session.

Participants identified that it was important to define and sort through what “collective accountability” or “accountability for a collective higher-level change” means if accountability mechanisms are going to be effective. Based on the previous discussion, it was agreed that the individual commitments made and/or accountability for those commitments might not lead to a mechanism that can measure and track accountability for this collective system or impact level change. As a result, participants identified the need to: Further refine or define the specific changes being sought under the CtA (that can then be

measured and tracked) Further identify and unpack the interdependence of those changes, the commitments related to

them, and the links between the activities outlined in the commitments and the impacts (quality) they can achieve

Participants noted that it is necessary to answer the following questions in order to build an accountability mechanism for collective accountability: What is the change that we want? And what do we mean by systems change?

Roles and Responsibilities Bearing this in mind, participants identified the following as possible roles, responsibilities and

GROUP EXERCISE 2

For each type of change (1 flipchart for system-level and 1 for impact-level), select 3 commitments (or create them if you don’t find appropriate ones) and answer:

Defined responsibility: Who is accountable to whom for what? What assessment mechanisms might be appropriate? By whom? What kinds of consequences might work for different stakeholder

groups? What general conclusions or recommendations about follow-up?


9

considerations in a collective accountability system for the CtA A need to further define who are the “system” actors that should be included in each of the

“system level changes” that are being committed to? A need to identify funding to help system change happen and to help implement the

different roles and responsibilities in that system A need to define and unpack the interconnectedness of roles and responsibilities, and

identify ways to include that or account for it in the accountability mechanism, i.e. for: national governments, donors, relief agencies, service providers, inter-agency fora and cluster leads, etc.

Assessment Mechanisms Participants discussed the need to link the commitments being made with the lived experiences of women and girls on the ground who should be receiving the benefits of commitment makers’ actions. Links should also include ways to leverage elements that are politically strategic or smart for the commitment maker to improvements in benefits for women and girls on the ground. When doing so, it is necessary to identify who is doing the assessment and analysis and making sure this happens – i.e. the duty bearers for the CtA or the duty bearers for the specific commitments. Participants noted that this was an important distinction that needed to be addressed as conversations move forward around the CtA. In discussing collective accountability, participants identified that it was important to keep the question of “feasibility” in mind and that any assessment or enforcement mechanism needs to be feasible for actors to implement. Participants also noted that there is a sense of cascading interconnectedness among the different commitments, the roles and responsibilities for those commitments and, therefore, for the assessment mechanisms that can be implemented. The example raised was the question: Should donors only fund projects that reflect good guidance? And, if and when there are work plans to reflect that guidance, are the work plans accessible or easy to use? If they are, how do you then measure “uptake” or “political or institutional will”? Given these questions, participants examined whether or not the clusters might provide the most appropriate mechanisms for assessment. Discussions also asked the question of how to determine whether commitments were successful or not and what could some of the key indicators be in order to assess that success so that commitment makers could be held accountable to the success of the commitment as well as the implementation of the commitment. Participants identified that this type of assessment would require multi-level, multi-agency efforts that begin at the provider level and cascade upwards through to the clusters and inter-agency coordinating bodies. Given the degree of complexity and time involved that this would take, participants suggested that a more efficient and effective way of defining and tracking collective accountability would be to:

Identify a limited number of commitments that the NGO community sees as “priority” ones for effecting system-level change (including how and why)

Develop and implement accountability mechanisms specific to tracking implementation of those particular priority commitments

Enforcement Measures Participants identified the Puzzle Piece framework as one of the most coherent ways to track those commitments that the NGO community sees as “priority.” It was suggested that the way to move this forward is to:


10

Have a body such as the GBV AoR look at the Puzzle Piece framework and identify what each of those pieces should “look like” in practice to be “necessary and sufficient” to create change.

Identify how the GBV community should select and agree on the “priority” commitments that can help those Puzzle Pieces become reality if they are resourced and implemented properly

Define how to track progress on each of those Puzzle Pieces Define how to enforce progress on each of those Puzzle Pieces or priority commitments

Participants noted that it would be important to define how to assess coordination so that it is effective and removes or avoids duplication of commitments/efforts in the future. Participants also stressed the importance of deciding which steps or what commitments/priorities the community wants to advocate for inclusion into the USG roadmap process, once this is completed. It was also noted that keeping donors engaged via the accountability system will be important to this process. A final point was made that NGOs should aim to develop a mechanism that can be followed or implemented even without funding.

3.3 Conclusions or Ideas to Take Forward into “Next Steps” for Accountability The following is a list of some of the specific ideas or conclusions identified in the day’s discussions and that need to be taken forward into “next steps” for building an accountability mechanism for the CtA (see section 4) include: Refine and specify the terminology of many of the commitments so that the duty-bearer, right-

holder, intention, and focus are clear (and can therefore be correctly measured, assessed and enforced as part of the accountability process)

Identify and define the specific indicators or milestones for impact-system level change that commitments are contributing towards (so that assessments can be based on those indicators as well as whether or not organizations do what they said they would)

Identify mechanisms such as work plans, financial plans, financial tracking and learning agendas that need to be in place along with the commitments (for inclusion in assessment mechanisms)

Identify the priority commitments that contribute to “necessary and sufficient” conditions for change and track only those ones

Develop a framework for eliminating duplications of efforts or commitments (so there is better coordination and leveraging)

Unpack and define interrelated commitments, roles and responsibilities so that assessment mechanisms can track each element of these for the different actors involved

Ensure that enforcement measures have both “naming and shaming” and “naming and praising” mechanisms and ensure these are tied to already existing mechanisms (such as GHD, donor groups, etc) and/or reporting structures or global forums

Define the elements of “right programs” and the other Puzzle Pieces in the framework so that NGOs can agree on priority commitments to support and track


11

4. Next Steps for IA Working Group By the start of this session, most participants had to leave – meaning the next steps outlined below are the product of a much smaller working group (approximately 6-8 people). The session approach was therefore modified to be a plenary discussion with the following components:

Identification of key upcoming opportunities Next steps for consolidating NGOs’ input into the process to move forward the Call to Action

(some of key potential actions from working groups earlier in the day were written on flip chart)

Discussion of key responsibilities for those next steps Upcoming opportunities:

½-day PRM consultation with GBV AoR members (early June 2014) UNHCR NGO Consultations (June 2014): The formal schedule is set however, given the

number of southern NGOs in Geneva, it might be worth doing a consultation with them Gender in Emergencies review that will happen at ECOSOC in NYC or Geneva (June 2014) U.N. General Assembly meetings (September 2014)

Participants recognized that there is a need to clarify certain questions as the IA GBV Working Group moves these discussions forward. These include: Following on the discussion described in Section 3, most of this session focused on identifying how to move forward the suggestion that the IA working group focus on fleshing out the Puzzle Framework as per a series of identified observable changes that NGOs would like to see under each puzzle piece. Specific steps to follow are:

For each Puzzle Piece, identify what the elements of “right” are and define the milestones that would illustrate that the “right” elements have been achieved (the current sub-elements of puzzle pieces are categories, but not targeted changes that could be verified)

Prioritize a limited number of commitments (8-15) that NGOs identify as important to track – above and beyond other commitments, not instead of. These should be those commitments that the NGO community identifies as those that will yield the greatest change within the limited duration of the CtA (“bang for the buck” in systemic change)

Identify the mechanism for assessing the priority commitments and: o Who will assess? o How to assess? o Public praise or shame? How and when?

Translate the selected priorities from the puzzle analysis to a donor-understandable framework

Identify linkages from these processes to the IASC system so that the NGO community can capitalize on, and leverage, other opportunities to move the CtA goal forward.

The following table captures the concrete next steps identified (with some modest editorial license). Many were not assigned deadlines or responsible parties due to time, although this would be part of the discussions that the NGO group would undertake under the first action below: Action Who By

When? Necessary inputs


12

Action Who By When?

Necessary inputs

Convene NGO pre-meeting to explain summary outcomes of this meeting and Call-to-Action and agree on ensuring :

1) Definition of milestones for call to action puzzle pieces or 12 principles

2) Recommendations for new commitments based on lessons learned from types of commitments

3) Timeframes to advocate for Call to Action commitments

4) Prioritizing key commitments or missing commitments Proposed outputs: Informational talking point to share at the June ½-day PRM AoR consultation and the NGO asks for key elements of the PRM visioning/roadmap process

Jessica to coordinate

Within next 7-10 days

Drafts prepared by co-chairs and IA

Possible meeting with other NGO attendees of AoR retreat to review outputs of IA NGO pre-meeting

TBD at NGO pre-meeting

TBD

Define the milestones (e.g. observable changes) associated with the Puzzle Piece framework (either as part of PRM process, or perhaps just as an NGO community)

TBD TBD

Identify priority commitments (either as part of PRM process, or perhaps just as an NGO community)

TBD TBD

Translate milestones from puzzle framework and other priorities into donor-understandable framework, linked to the political commitments in the communiqué and agree on specific advocacy “asks” and strategy

TBD TBD

Determine process for reviewing progress on NGO commitments and additional measures for priority commitments

TBD TBD

call to action for vawg accountability review … 7...call to action for vawg accountability review...

Documents