Global Health Cluster Partners Meeting: draft for consultation.
The New Way of Working represents an opportunity to achieve step changes in the working methods, efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian and development actors towards reducing needs, risks, and vulnerabilities. However, how this new approach will be applied in protracted conflict situations has generated some concerns mostly around the protection and preservation of humanitarian space vis-a-vis peacebuilding objectives as outlined in the Sustaining Peace resolutions. Thus, in these settings the New Way of Working needs to be carefully considered and its implementation clearly framed.
The concept of Collective Outcomes is often cited as the core transformational aspect that sets aside current policy discussions on the Nexus from past attempts to link relief to development, or bridge the humanitarian-development divide.
The implementation, understanding, and even expectations for what and how collective outcomes should be varies widely in their interpretation and has resulted in COs that are pitched at different levels of specificity, granularity (national/sub-national), and timeframes.
A major influencing factor on the nature of Collective Outcomes is the type of joint-analysis and joint-assessment processes that underpin them. There are no established standards for joint context analysis approaches: some country teams use HNOs as entry points, some other use CCA, or RPBA, or RSA, or refugee analysis (CRRF), nationally owned SDG implementation plans or a mix thereof – adapted to their context.
Despite these major advancements in the articulation of COs, challenges remain. These include: developing robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess impact against these Collective Outcomes; ensuring appropriate short, medium, and long-term financing; as well as clarifying/ agreeing on accountability frameworks to deliver the activities under each Outcome.
Data presented in this mapping stems from two practitioners’ workshops convened by the IASC Humanitarian Development Nexus Task Team; and from ongoing discussions among practitioners through the Community of Practice hosted by the HDN TT.
As an outcome of the peer-to-peer workshop in Entebbe (28-29 November 2017), a Community of Practice Network (CoPN) on Humanitarian Development Nexus (HDN) and Humanitarian Development Peace Nexus (HDPN) is being established. The CoPN comes in response to the requirements and suggestions of such a network, as expressed by peers in Entebbe. The CoPN will provide support and guidance on ways to implement the elements necessary to strengthen collaboration across humanitarian, development and peace actors who have agreed to work together to solve problems of common concern, share knowledge, and cultivate best practices. Through this CoPN, practitioners can share experiences and lessons learned.
With the objective to provide policy coherence and consistency in programme support, in response to these requests, and in line with the HDN TT’s agreed workplan, this document is designed to offer a menu of support activities that members of the IASC Task Team, collectively or individually and in collaboration with other relevant bodies both within and outside of the IASC can undertake to support field-colleagues. These activities, stem from experience in providing such support in Sudan, current pending requests from Mali, as well as support activities identified through discussions with field-practitioners. It is important to note, however, that the following list of activities is non-exhaustive and must be adapted to context, adapted to the degree of understanding, buy-in, and capacity in-country.
These documents were produced as a background document for the Peer-to-Peer workshop on strengthening collaboration across humanitarian, development and peacebuilding sectors.
They serve to provide a baseline snapshot of in-country progress towards strengthening the humanitarianidevelopment nexus, the so-called New Way of Working. All data is based on self-reporting from members of the Humanitarian Country Team/UN Country Team.
Despite systemic, procedural and administrative challenges, actors at the country level are working to find solutions to the obstacles that perpetuate the humanitarian and development silos, including different programme cycles, tools and procedures; lack of uniformity in support and flexibility in funding; and inconsistent membership of actors in different planning processes. However, despite these strides at policy and field level, questions remain.
Actors at country level continue to work on, refine, and develop new solutions to the obstacles that perpetuate the silos between humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors and their efforts. They are developing new approaches to harmonize programming cycles and to streamline coordination and planning mechanisms to better address risks, vulnerabilities and root causes to crisis.
The 1st Practitioners’ Support Network Workshop was held in Entebbe, Uganda, 28-29 November 2017, bringing together 21 peer practitioners including representatives from the UN, NGO community and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The primary aim of this workshop was to facilitate pragmatic trouble-shooting through cross-learning and peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. Practitioners shared their in-depth knowledge and hands-on experiences in advancing a strengthened collaboration across sectors in the field.
In addition to major humanitarian crises triggered by natural disasters or conflicts, infectious disease events, including outbreaks, can result in a Humanitarian System-wide Scale-Up activation(i.e. ‘Scale-Up activation’) to ensure a more effective response.
Scale-Up activation procedures for infectious disease events build on the InterAgency Standing Committee (IASC) Scale-Up activation protocols, with adjustments to reflect the potential evolution of an infectious event, the roles of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its Director-General and Member States under the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005), and the importance of non-IASC organizations in responding to infectious disease events. These procedures also recognize that many infectious hazards are of animal origin, with the response incorporating a ‘One Health’ approach.
This paper outlines the IASC procedures for the assessment of infectious disease events, the consultation and decision-making processes on Scale-Up activation, the activation and deactivation criteria and procedures, and implications for IASC members and other key collaborating organizations.