Ken Maskall DUNDEX Associate

METHODOLOGICAL PROCESS FOR STRENGTHENING NATIONAL

HUMANITARIAN WASH COORDINATION

P a g e | 1

Contents Page No.

1. Introduction 2

2. Key Assumptions 3

3. Determinant Identification 4

4. Methodology 7

4.1 Country Humanitarian Typology 7

4.2 Methodological Process for Humanitarian WASH Coordination Transition Planning 9

5. Key Considerations 13

Box Example of Country Humanitarian Typology Ranking for Mali 8

Figure 1: MoRES type Methodological process for Nationally-led 12

Humanitarian WASH Coordination Transition Planning

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Methodological process for Nationally-led

Humanitarian WASH Coordination Transition planning (4 Domains)

Annex 2: Determinant & Key Driver Checklist for NHWC Transition

ANNEX 3: Primary Stakeholder Analysis guidelines

ANNEX 4a: Power/Interest Matrix

ANNEX 4b: RACI Matrix

ANNEX 5: Perception Mapping Methodology & Example

P a g e | 2

Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination A Methodological Process

1. Introduction

Humanitarian actions guided by internationally agreed principles and norms of service delivery aim to meet the most basic needs of crisis-affected populations but must also strengthen a country’s ability to withstand and recover from future shocks and hazards by addressing underlying vulnerabilities. For fundamental human rights such as access to safe water and adequate sanitation, this is especially important, as WASH frequently becomes the quantum stabilisation factor in times of crisis. Assessing a country’s readiness to strengthen its humanitarian WASH management and coordination

capacity requires a sector-specific contextual analysis of political, economic and social factors which

drive sector governance as well as institutional vulnerabilities and capacities at all levels involving all

stakeholders. In partnership with the Global WASH Cluster Advisory & Support Team and as WASH

Cluster Lead Agency, UNICEF is supporting country specific articulation on how to achieve an in-depth

sector-specific analysis of factors driving and potentially constraining nationally-led humanitarian

WASH coordination functions. The resulting framework aims to generate a common understanding of

priorities among humanitarian actors which will allow for a more coordinated and prioritised targeting

of resources.

In order to support the development of guidance tools for strengthening nationally-led Humanitarian WASH Coordination systems, a number of country specific case studies have been conducted (in Ethiopia, Mali and Haiti). Each country case study has been designed around a methodological process which draws from the MoRES1 framework, establishing key determinants, bottlenecks and mitigation factors which identify human and financial resources and strategic actions required to achieve desired nationally-led humanitarian WASH coordination outcomes. Specific tools to analyse institutional relationships and bottlenecks have been developed for the country case studies and these are annexed for reference.

The methodological process can be used to define elements of a strategic plan for transition to

nationally led humanitarian WASH coordination and is intended for use by UNICEF in convening

country Humanitarian WASH dialogue with partners in the context of sector wide reform initiatives.

The methodological process itself is human rights based and has been informed by empirical work of

the WASH Cluster with Governments in several countries, feedback from senior Representatives with

extensive emergency experience and a desk review of Cluster performance evaluations undertaken

worldwide. Essentially, the methodological process has been user-defined and is applicable to almost

any Humanitarian Coordination Country Typology which may be described as a function of:

vulnerability to hazards and shocks; national systems capacity to prevent and manage shocks & ability

to mitigate underlying threats of conflict within both rural and urban environments. The country case

studies have also generated a series of generic operational recommendations to support the

humanitarian WASH coordination transition exercise. These are framed around the key determinants

of the Methodological process and should be read in conjunction with this document.

1 MoRES is a conceptual framework for effective planning, programming, implementation, monitoring and

managing of results. Originally devised to monitor results for Equity Systems it has broad application where there is need to monitor the achievement of results in a planning process which has complex determinant factors, potential bottlenecks and pathways for mitigation of constraints. Its application in providing guidance for the Humanitarian WASH Coordination Strengthening exercise is deemed appropriate due to the complex nature of institutional and environmental risk factors which have a bearing upon desired outcomes and the need for a clear progress tracking mechanism which permits timely corrective course actions.

P a g e | 3

2. Key Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made in developing the Methodological process for

Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination systems:

1. Government retain primary accountability and are de-facto the most significant stakeholders in

bringing about effective disaster preparedness planning, response, mitigation and recovery

actions, in full alignment with the Paris and Accra development principles.

2. If for reasons of instability, the Government is unable to fulfil its sovereign functions in part or

whole of its territory, the international community will exercise its moral obligation under

humanitarian law to ensure that the WASH related needs and rights of the affected population

are continuously addressed through Cluster deployments until the Government is able to fully

resume its sovereign role.

3. Donors concerned with the cost-effectiveness of extended Cluster deployments will seek to

prioritise resource allocations for nationally-led humanitarian WASH coordination system

strengthening in favour of countries which exhibit both the highest vulnerability and weakest

capacity for humanitarian WASH sector coordination in accordance with the Accra and Paris

principles of good Donorship.

4. Transition towards nationally owned, managed and resourced WASH humanitarian response

systems should progressively occur as a priority within those countries which have experienced

cluster activation and have established national WASH sector-wide programmes supported by

consolidated funding mechanisms - thus allowing a concentration of scarce donor resources for

those countries which remain dependent on external Cluster support.

5. Traditional WASH Sector and disaster risk management and coordination bodies are likely to be

the most appropriate institutional foundations upon which to build increasingly accountable

national WASH Humanitarian coordination structures.

P a g e | 4

2. Determinant Identification Ten determinants have been identified for the Methodological process based upon empirical work and a desk study review of cluster deployment & transitions worldwide. These determinants were trialled and modified during country level assessments in Ethiopia, Mali and Haiti to capture the scope of political, economic, social, institutional and service quality assessment required to forge a strategic action plan for transition from Cluster-led to nationally-led Humanitarian WASH coordination systems. The ten determinants are grouped into four domains representing the Enabling Environment; Institutional & Regulatory Environment; Capacity & Services and Quality Standards (see Annex 1 attached for an example of the determinant framework and methodological process):

Enabling Environment Domain

1. Political, Economic & Social Context

All humanitarian crises have political, economic and social dimensions, each with their unique historical legacy, whether nationally generated or externally influenced and each having a unique impact on the current humanitarian situation and likely future trends. The history of social conflict, evolution & stability of political systems, status of the economy, diversity of ethnic political representation in state institutions and culture of respect for international norms and fundamental human rights all have major bearing on the enabling environment for a transitional capacity assessment process. 2. Humanitarian Needs and Hazard Trends

This determinant category attempts to scope the recent (10 year) history of humanitarian crises in

country, their intensity, frequency of occurrence and their impact legacies. The determinant scope

also includes an assessment of which actors become involved in planning and effecting a humanitarian

response on behalf of the affected population at all decentralised levels, constraints with physical

access to affected groups and progress with rehabilitation / resilience building efforts. Capacity and

accountability for disaster risk reduction and risk management in general and within the WASH sector

is also an intrinsic part of this determinant’s scope. Future hazard trends and potential future

humanitarian needs are assessed through reference to country level early warning and threat analysis

sources - though these may be complemented by reference to the global INFORM Risk assessment

database which presents risk rankings for potential natural, environmental and conflict induced

hazards for 191 territories and states worldwide.

3. Sector Financial Management /Investment Trend & Non-state actor liaison

Financial management and accountability practices among international partners and Government

have a key bearing on the scope, timing and effectiveness of humanitarian response and coordination

as well as the likelihood of external (donor) funding sustainability. This determinant should assess

trends of humanitarian action funding by partners and government, specifically for coordination

functions but specifically related to institutional capacity building in the WASH sector. It should also

consider the efficacy of various mechanisms of donor engagement and accountability adopted, an

overview of the national sector budgeting process and prioritisation for capacity building in terms of

financial management. Fiduciary risk assessments undertaken on behalf of government are key

sources of information as these tend to highlight risk factors and remedial actions courses which are

highly relevant to the transition process. Non-State actor liaison is included in this determinant for

those countries with a peace keeping force presence as funding mechanisms may differ where these

entities have a major presence, especially when hostile non-state forces severely disrupt local

governance and financial management practices.

P a g e | 5

Institutional & Regulatory Domain

4. Cluster and Sector Coordination Activation Status

This determinant focuses on the history of Cluster activation in country, the role of the Humanitarian

Country Team in initiating dialogue with Government on nationally-led coordination transition. The

scope should address the depth of engagement between Cluster WASH professionals and their sector

counterparts, new capacities generated by this interaction and the extent of donor engagement in

Cluster activation and transition discussions (with a view to longer-term stabilisation funding). Higher

level sector engagement with over-arching humanitarian affairs governmental bodies, including those

with DRR accountability is also to be assessed. It is important to avoid focussing on specific personality

factors and to concentrate on institutional policy/structure/accountability issues in identifying

bottlenecks and their causes.

5. Sector Institutional Structures & Regulatory Framework

This requires the mapping of key sector institutional structures with accountability for WASH services,

paying attention to the degree of WASH mandate fragmentation between government agencies and

internal communication pathways. Progress with WASH sector wide approaches should be assessed,

together with their consequences for sector coordination management from national to the most

decentralised levels of governance and the impact on funding/financing modalities (especially pooled

funding mechanisms). In many countries, these reforms are mid-stream and it becomes necessary to

understand the regulatory and legal mechanisms driving the reform process, the likely outcomes with

respect to consolidation (merger of fragmented mandate institutions) and their respective roles in

mainstreaming DRR in the sector. Further attention should be paid to the institutional mechanisms

which define the quality of interaction and regulation between Government and civil society actors

who may engage in humanitarian action, especially in cases where the majority of humanitarian

support is provided by private funding for the latter.

6. Inter-Cluster/Sector Coordination

This determinant should assess the effectiveness of inter-cluster coordination mechanisms, the extent

to which the Inter-Cluster group has initiated multi-cluster transition dialogue with counterpart

government agencies, multi-cluster joint needs assessment practice (involving government partners)

and the existence of donor initiatives driving multi-cluster/joint sector actions. Overall effectiveness

of inter-sectoral coordination is highlighted and the efficacy of Finance Ministry or Humanitarian (DRR)

Ministry driven coordination and WASH sector participation should be assessed, with attention to the

participation of both in a coordination transition dialogue. Attention should also be paid to potential

for donor capture or “projectisation” of sector coordination (and information management) functions

within sector agencies as these can limit the free flow of information sharing practices which are vital

to effective coordination. The extent to which multi-sectoral factors impacting WASH related

outcomes are reflected in the UNDAF or other appeal frameworks should also be assessed.

Capacity & Services Domain

7. Human Resource Capacity for Cluster/Sector Coordination

The main focus here is with capacity gaps in the Cluster and Sector staffing structures concerned with

coordination functions, the degree of performance alignment with cluster best practice and

investment trends in strengthening humanitarian WASH capacity among national sector counterparts.

The human resource management policies of the sector should be analysed to determine enabling

and constraining factors which impact the motivation and performance of staff to perform

coordination functions under duress during peak crisis periods. Recent sector capacity needs

assessments and Government audit observations on HR practices are worth referencing. The

feasibility of establishing national training partnerships for humanitarian coordination with academic

institutions or other specialist partners should be considered for the purpose of sustainability.

P a g e | 6

8. Cluster/Sector Information Management Practice

Communication and information sharing is the life blood of effective coordination. This determinant

assesses factors enabling/constraining the responsiveness of humanitarian partners in sharing

required WASH information related to early warning, planning, response and crisis prevention actions.

Access to and the sustainability of web-based data management systems should also be assessed,

with particular regard for new IM tools which are open source and permit bespoke design solutions.

Sector based information management policy and systems are reviewed, particularly with regard to

the compatibility of existing systems to facilitate data exchange among partners and measures to

enhance feedback among crisis affected populations. Whilst existing sector-based data management

centres are the most logical starting point when building IM capacity for humanitarian action, the

assessment may consider other institutional alternatives offered by academic centres and IM

specialised agencies.

9. Supply & Procurement Practice

Recent market survey results may be assessed to determine whether local markets can sustain

intensive local WASH hardware and service procurement within acceptable risk limits as well as

conditions which may justify importation from regional/international markets. The potential of mobile

money instruments to empower crisis affected populations to directly procure WASH goods and

services may be considered. Capacity factors enabling and constraining the entire supply planning

process for humanitarian WASH in Government deserve close attention, with fiduciary risk assessment

findings offering insight to key risks and mitigation strategies. Cluster and Sector hardware

standardisation policy harmonisation is worth further consideration, as is the potential impact of

funding on the whole procurement planning cycle, including end-user feedback.

Quality Standards Domain

10. Alignment between national & international humanitarian WASH service delivery norms

Setting standards and monitoring compliance for minimum WASH service levels, procedures and

system design are key functions of the Cluster structure and cross-cutting issues for humanitarian

coordination. In transitioning to nationally-led humanitarian coordination, the potential for continued

alignment with international norms should be assessed. Factors enabling and constraining

harmonised standard achievement may be unique to the humanitarian situation, including physical

access to, security, communication with and population mobility within crisis affected areas.

Perceived conflicts of principle between humanitarian and development standards and operating

procedures (e.g. CLTS) and means of standard verification/enforcement may be further

considerations. Awareness of humanitarian principles & standards is critical so practices which

enhance dissemination of established norms should be assessed, including reference to web-based

tools (washcluster.net) and translation into local major languages.

P a g e | 7

4. Methodology

4.1 Humanitarian Coordination Typology

As a preamble to the detailed methodological assessment of humanitarian coordination transition factors, a provisional understanding of the overarching risk factors which determine the “humanitarian country typology” may be required in order to guide funding and external technical support to where it is most needed. UNICEF’s “Strengthening Humanitarian Action” initiative characterises these humanitarian typologies in the following categories:

1. High vulnerability/low national systems capacity

2. High vulnerability/limited but growing national systems capacity to prevent and manage shocks

3. High vulnerability/high national systems capacity to prevent and manage shocks.

4. Civil conflict / civil unrest & urban contexts. Given that civil conflict and urban contexts are cross-cutting factors which can apply to each of the first three typologies, there appear to be only three risk factors which are relevant for this assessment: National Capacity; Vulnerability; Conflict Threat. A rapid assessment of these risk factors can be determined by quick reference to the following INFORM Risk Index rankings2 which are published annually.

• National Capacity - INFORM Coping Capacity Index (Combines Institutional & Infrastructure capacity)

• Vulnerability - INFORM Risk Indexes of Natural Hazard & Vulnerability (Social & Economic factors)

• Conflict threats - INFORM Human Hazard Index (Potential for Conflict and Extra-judicial killings)

During the country level assessment exercises, the following risk rankings were derived to confirm

that these countries all lie within the very highest risk category of humanitarian country typology

relative to the ranking quartiles of the 191 countries listed in the INFORM Index. A worked example

of the Country Humanitarian Typology ranking assessment follows for Mali (see Box). A worked

example of the Country Humanitarian Typology ranking assessment follows for Mali (see Box).

* Vulnerability rankings combine the Natural Hazard Index and the Vulnerability Index to produce a composite ranking

figure based on the geometric mean of these two.

** Overall rankings are based upon the geometric mean of the three main indicator rankings.

Although the method has limitations3, the high capacity deficit evident for all three states and either very high or high threats of conflict suggests that these countries warrant priority support with the humanitarian coordination transition process, with significant capacity building needed within secure working environments at all levels. However, a more in-depth sector-specific analysis of factors driving and potentially constraining progress with the strengthening of national humanitarian WASH coordination functions is required in order to narrowly target capacity building efforts where they might have greatest impact. This leads to the MoRES type Methodological process which is now described in the following step by step procedure.

2 http://reliefweb.int/report/world/index-risk-management-inform-concept-and-methodology-version-2014 3 INFORM indexes are derived from ranking data sets which do not capture the immediate dynamics of change, they do not

reveal precipitating factors and underlying causes and in this instance, are indicative of only a few significant risk factors. As such they are suited to global strategic priority setting for humanitarian support but cannot substitute detailed country

level risk analysis of dynamic change and precipitation factors.

Country Humanitarian Typology Determinants

Ethiopia Mali Haiti

Rank Quartile Rank Quartile Rank Quartile

National Capacity 177 Very High 179 Very High 181 Very High

Vulnerability* 152 Very High 116 High 162 Very High

Conflict Threats 164 Very High 175 Very High 138 High

Overall** 164 Very High 154 Very High 159 Very High

P a g e | 8

P a g e | 9

4.2 Methodological Process for Humanitarian WASH Coordination Transition Planning

The following process draws heavily on the Level 3 MoRES monitoring process and is adapted to the context of humanitarian coordination transition planning as this may have a medium-long term outcome horizon, multiple drivers and constraints and the resulting framework is well adapted to making regular strategic adjustments to reach outcomes, leveraging of partnerships and resources. The tool kit (attached in Annexes XXX) with this methodological process can be applied in assessing the drivers and bottlenecks within each determinant category defined.

Step 1: Decide what & whom to assess & monitor

Use the Ten Determinants of the Methodological process (and their supplementary list of issues)

as a basis to assess the national context, institutional structures, services and relationships

impacting the effectiveness of the nationally-led Humanitarian WASH Coordination processes.

Tools to Use:

INFORM Risk Index – to assess a broad range of environmental, economic, social and

institutional risk factors in the national context (supplementary to the Country Typology

Exercise). These should also be supplemented with an assessment of potential trigger factors

which could abruptly change the course of national stability, particularly those related to

national political processes and social order in general.

Primary Stakeholder Analysis Guidelines: Used to guide analysis of key informant roles,

relationships, information sharing and capacity needs with regard to humanitarian WASH

coordination functions.

Power/Interest Matrix: Used as a complement to the primary Stakeholder Analysis tool to

identify critical gatekeepers of accountability and responsibility as well as likely need for critical

communication pathways between the main actors.

RACI Matrix: Supplementary tool to the Power/Interest Matrix which provides a more detailed

breakdown of roles and responsibilities which might be engaged during each stage of the

coordination transition planning process. RACI is an acronym for:

R – Responsibility (person or role responsible for ensuring that the item is completed),

A – Accountable (person or role responsible for actually doing or completing the item),

C – Consulted (person or role whose subject matter expertise is required to complete the item)

I – Informed (person or role that needs to be kept informed of the status of item completion).

Perception Mapping: Used to provisionally identify Positive (drivers) and Negative (bottleneck)

factors which may impact the transition planning process. May be applied to analyse a specific

determinant in the planning stage or in a macro-analysis of the entire process.

P a g e | 10

Step 2: Define Outcome & Indicators

Define desired overall National Humanitarian WASH Coordination Outcome and country specific

indicators (input, process and output) for each of the Ten Determinants. The following generic

Outcome for planning exercises to Strengthen Nationally-led Humanitarian Coordination is suggested:

The outcome statement may specifically refer to the extent which external partners remain engaged

in the Humanitarian WASH Coordination process and/or may include a statement which highlights the

international humanitarian obligation which external partner have to remain engaged in humanitarian

operations in the face of extreme instability when the government may be severely challenged in

exercising its sovereign governance duties.

Combinations of input, process and output indicators may be used, provided that they are easily

verified and preferably part of existing socio-economic or sector performance monitoring systems.

Step 3: Identify sources and collect information

Identify information sources and collect information (using the tools highlighted in Step 1), mapping

institutional structures, interpersonal relationships, communication & information sharing practices

and key gatekeepers for each of the Ten Determinants during each stage of the transition planning

process.

Desired Outcome - Strengthening National Humanitarian Coordination Humanitarian leadership of national authorities over humanitarian WASH response within national sector programmes at all levels is strengthened & WASH related needs and rights of the affected population are continuously addressed in the face of underlying instability.

Potential Sources:

Cluster Reports: particularly those which reflect learning outcomes, the degree of national

government engagement and key bottleneck identification with the process of coordination.

WASH Sector Wide Reform Plans: mapping institutional structural changes, timelines, key

functions and sector financing mechanisms / strategic priorities.

DRR Mainstreaming Plans: identifying key actors, strategies for mainstreaming DRR awareness and

specific engagement with the WASH sector coordination mechanism.

Fiduciary Risk Assessment Reports & Audit Reports: specific to the WASH sector, with emphasis

on financial, human resources and procurement management processes.

Capacity Needs Assessment Reports: for the WASH Sector.

Information Management Plans: describing sector IM platforms developed or proposed and their

potential for integration with humanitarian WASH IM systems.

P a g e | 11

Step 4: Identify key drivers of change and bottlenecks

Identify key change drivers and bottlenecks for each of the Ten Determinants by analysing the

strongest and weakest links in the chain of issues identified for each determinant. Perception

mapping tools are helpful with this exercise and may be applied in depth for specific determinants or

as a cross-cutting analytical exercise for the entire planning process. This may be repeated every six

months or so if there are major contextual shifts in the national environment which would require

course-corrective actions. See Annex (5) for an example of positive factor perception mapping

undertaken in Mali during the country assessment exercise. Other tools such as the Primary

Stakeholder Analysis Guidelines (Annex 3) will help in identifying key drivers and bottlenecks to

coordination planning progress as well as current communication pathways. The Power/Interest &

RACI Matrices (Annex 4a & 4b) help to guide analysis of relationship bottlenecks and information flows

which are critical for effective coordination. Annex 2 summarises an example of key generic drivers

for each determinant.

Step 5: Analyse cause of bottlenecks

Analyse causes of bottlenecks starting from decentralised levels of local causes feeding into a

national synthesis of sectoral and multi-sectoral cross-cutting bottlenecks. Causes of bottlenecks are

not always immediately apparent though are frequently related to scarcity of human resources,

finance, supply inputs and information. Perception Mapping can reveal bottleneck causes as well as

structured questioning of key stakeholders using the Primary Stakeholder Analysis guidelines. Effort

should be made to group the causes of bottlenecks into discrete accountability domains among key

stakeholders in order to facilitate consolidated action within clearly accountable institutional

structures. It is likely that perceived causes of the same bottlenecks will differ between decentralised

and national levels as well as between different government entities who share WASH mandate

accountabilities. For this reason it is helpful to conduct perception mapping on the same determinant

issues at each governance level and within each mandated institutional setting in order to rule out

highly subjective conflicts of opinion and to gain a consensus on the principal bottleneck causes.

Step 6: Determine corrective/mitigating actions

Determine corrective and mitigating courses of action at all levels, from local management actions

to national strategic policy and budget adjustments. Bottleneck causes and mitigating actions may

fall outside the mandate boundary of sector partners, in which case, advocacy and multi-sector

approaches may be required for the necessary consensus for action to be developed with other

partners. Other mitigating actions may require sustained action over a long period of time to achieve

desired outcomes. Perception Mapping may identify short term “quick win” actions which can be

helpful in winning confidence (among government and potential donors) and consensus for longer

term corrective and mitigating actions.

Step 7: Report Results

Report results according to chosen indicators and generate “real time” reports on the evolution of

decentralised and cross-cutting bottlenecks to trigger actions at local, national and global levels.

The timeline for result reporting in a humanitarian coordination transition planning process is likely to

be tied closely with Sector-wide programme progress reporting and may not therefore be primarily

driven by humanitarian action itself. This distinction is important to acknowledge given that

humanitarian action demands stringent and urgent reporting procedures. It is best to establish

standing procedures for reporting on transition progress to established sector coordination bodies

whilst making arrangements for the same progress updates to be addressed to Cluster coordination

meetings as a standing agenda item for as long as Cluster deployment continues in support of residual

humanitarian activities.

The MoRES-type methodological process (Annex 1) which follows illustrates a typical example of how this analysis can be structured.

P a g e | 12

Figure 1: MoRES type Methodological process for Nationally-led Humanitarian WASH Coordination Transition Planning

5. Key Considerations

The methodological process outlined in this document draws heavily on the MoRES type methodology

as this seems to offer an appropriate framework for analysis of a wide range of determinants, driving

and constraining factors which will shape the outcome of a strategic plan. Tools used for the country

level analysis are attached for reference here, though users are encouraged to innovate, borrowing

other analytical tools and adapting their use to forge a plan which has clear priorities and

accountability for action and yet still allows for some flexible mid-course readjustment of strategies

to achieve desired outcomes within an acceptable time frame.

Planning for a smooth transition between Cluster and nationally led Sector-driven Humanitarian

WASH Coordination demands clear accountability, early Government engagement and a fully inclusive

process with key humanitarian stakeholders in country, including representatives of potentially

affected communities. A series of lessons learned in forging this process have been gathered from

country level strategic planning reviews undertaken with the methodological process described here.

These comprise one further output of the assessment exercise titled: Generic Checklist for

Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination Transitions and this should be read in

conjunction with the methodological process outline here.

UNICEF must play a critical convening role in bringing together key national actors and representatives

of the humanitarian WASH community in forging transition plans under the joint leadership of the

Humanitarian Country team and high level officials of the key WASH sector ministry. The entire

process must be guided by international norms and best practice standards for the delivery of

humanitarian WASH services which have been established during the past ten years of global Cluster

deployment and UNICEF must play its part to ensure that awareness of these norms is widely founded

among all partners before transition planning can proceed.

The most practical foundation upon which to build a humanitarian WASH coordination platform will

lie somewhere within existing and evolving national WASH Sector institutional structures. It is

recommended that a Steering Body representing all key humanitarian WASH stakeholders be

established to undertake the transition planning process and that this steering body reports within

the national sector institution as well as to the Humanitarian Country Team and the Inter-Cluster

Group. Draft terms of Reference for a generic Steering Body have been developed for reference as

part of the Checklist exercise.

Some of the strategies needed to fulfil the desired coordination transition outcome may require multi-

sectoral effort and/or contributions by other non-sector specialists. Engagement with the national

DRR mainstreaming process is essential to generate an understanding of the determinants for resilient

service delivery and management processes. There will always be those among international partners

who routinely engage in providing humanitarian WASH services however who will resist transition to

nationally led coordination, especially when Government coordination capacity is perceived as weak

or otherwise wholly pre-occupied with the sector development process in non-crisis affected parts of

the country. Severe and chronic insecurity impacting residual humanitarian programmes may also

deter partners from engaging in the transition planning dialogue. This should be raised as a matter for

HCT guidance and the sector team should avoid risk taking by forcing transition within highly unstable

working environments. Early engagement and support by key donors may help to reassure those

partners who remain sceptical of the transition process, with clear benchmarks for Coordination

performance guiding the pace and direction of the transition process. Finally, urban-centred

humanitarian crises have unique risk profiles and yet the methodology described may serve transition

planning well, albeit requiring additional consultation with private sector WASH utility operators in

the process and more intensive public communication systems to maintain transparency in the

process.

ANNEXES

Methodological Process &

Analytical Tools

ANNEX 1:

ANNEX 1:

ANNEX 1:

ANNEX 1:

ANNEX 2: Determinant & Key Driver Checklist for NHWC Transition

.

Checklist

Suggest you group the Checklist recommendations under the 10 determinants.

In general, the checklist looks good just a couple points:

Suggest you clearly state the sections of the documents i.e. introduction, Topology, Checklist of determinants, Checklist of Key Drivers, and Checklist of Recommendations, Annex. Figure 1 in the text summarizes the checklist but there are no narratives for drivers and determinants even though you make reference to a detailed description in the document.. Suggest you present short narrative for the 10 determinants and drivers similar to what you have presented for the recommendations.

Annex 2 is not referenced in the document. I suggest you translate it into max 2 pager narrative checklist of drivers, similar to the narrative recommendations. If this is doable, then you can move annex 2 to the main framework as annex.

I suggest revising the introduction to include para on how you came up with the checklist, and end with a para on the components of the checklist ( typology, determinants, key drivers and recommendations) to guide the reader. See detailed suggestions in the document.

The section on topology is good, but suggest you make more clear why the INFORM tools is useful and how it should be used. You have already touched on this, but reducing the background/history of the tool will help simplify the message. Is the tool specific to conflict threats? What about other threats?

Suggest you change the outcome text from “Strengthen humanitarian leadership of national authorities over post-crisis response & ensure that the needs and rights of the population are continuously addressed in the face of continuing instability and/or incapacity of the government to fulfil essential sovereign functions” to “Government coordinates, prepares and responds appropriately to all emergencies with little or no external support, in providing humanitarian WASH services to all affected” as per our internal wording.

Annex 3: Primary Stakeholder Analysis guidelines

Primary Stakeholder Analysis guidelines – NHWC Exercise Country:

Respondent Date

1 Present Role Follow-up

action

1.1 How is your institution’s role – with regard to humanitarian response

formally defined ?

Get copies of

documents

1.2 Are individual officers roles clearly defined ? ditto

1.3 Are these definitions still relevant / do they need to be improved / how

/ what

List comments

1.4 Can you define where / when your responsibility ends? Wrt warning

and response

1.5 What are your institutional strengths / weaknesses in delivering this

role?

1.6 What factors influence your capacity?

Staff numbers

Staff Skills

Office provision

Communications Physical assets ( vehicles / computers)

Other factors: Influence / importance / institutional linkages and

support

Mandate overlaps / underlaps

Weaknesses in the chain of information and action

1.7 Does your institution have formal plans to:

Develop long term role?

Develop capacity ?

Get documents

1.8 What training / programmes / projects have you done in the past

concerning humanitarian preparedness/response planning ?

List and

comment

1.9 What are the key action points to improve your institutions ability to fulfil its

role?

Are there “gaps” in what you can achieve?

1.10 What external factors would mean your institution could better improve

its role ( e.g. formal requirements to act on your information)

1.11 What are the five critical factors which presently affect your

performance?

1.

2.

3.

4.

Methodological Process for Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination

5.

2. Experiences of the present humanitarian crisis forecasting /

preparedness and mitigation system

“Role

Mapping”

2.1 What are your daily “preparedness” tasks?

How do you communicate these to others?

Are all of the links there, are there weak or missing links?

Are there bottlenecks or weak points?

How could these be remedied?

2.2 What are your “warning ” tasks (i.e. identifying changing circumstances,

communicating this and short term actions?)

How do you identify a warning, and what do you do about it.

Do you get a warning from others…who / when and what?

What do you do when you receive a warning?

Are all of the links there, are there weak or missing links?

Are there bottlenecks or weak points?

How could these be remedied?

2.3 What are your “response” tasks in a humanitarian crisis?

How well do you feel you perform

Should you be doing these tasks

Should you be doing more / other tasks?

2.4 Secondary Stakeholders are defined having responsibilities to support

primary stakeholders during humanitarian crises and with preparedness

activities. These would include Line ministries, multi-lateral and

Bilateral agencies, local government departments, NGOs /CSOs.

Which secondary stakeholders do you work with?

Are these the right secondary stakeholders, who should you be working

with?

What are the bottlenecks in working with the secondary stakeholders

How could these secondary stakeholders improve the support they

provide?

What are your observations on the performance of secondary

stakeholders? Are their actions useful, coordinated, of lasting

effect….could they work differently and improve their impact?

The “last mile” stakeholders play a very significant role since they

enable the “human response” and this saves lives. What comments do

you have on the last mile?

2.5 Tertiary stakeholders are defined as having Direct and indirect

responsibilities to support long term mitigation and preparedness

efforts

Which tertiary stakeholder do you work with?

Methodological Process for Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination

Are these the right tertiary stakeholders, who should you be working

with?

What are the bottlenecks in working with the tertiary stakeholders

How could these tertiary stakeholders improve the support they provide?

2.6 Do you have comments / observations regarding the present

humanitarian crisis management situation?

List chain of

communication

and

performance

issues

2.7 Any other comments on present system?

3 Future System

Ask questions as applicable to

institution or individual.

3.1 Humanitarian Preparedness Planning & Response

Management “Model System”

What role should you have in the day to day

management and maintenance of the model?

Should others be involved ( who/ what/ how)

What are the institutional & resource implications

inc training, funding etc..

--------------------------

What role should you have in the longer term

maintenance / use of the model?

How would this best be achieved, what is needed?

3.2 Humanitarian WASH operations centre? Could some

core responsibilities be improved by “centralising /

re-organising” the institutional approach?

Key points are :

Improving the speed and formality of decision making

at the levels of early

warning/preparedness/response?

How could this be done at the national / sub national

and local levels?....is it too heavy or too light in

structure?

What are in practice the key decision factors and actions which trigger the chain of actions?

Do you have plans / ideas / suggestions for key linkage points of institutions?

Methodological Process for Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination

Should there be a mandated centralised effort – does it need a physical building / structure….can it be done de centralised by improving systems?

3.3 A future system could be improved by upgrading

what is presently done:

Joint planning

Service agreements

Contingency/Preparedness plans

Emergency response Simulation exercises

Better guidelines / more formal structures.

A clear Response plan with accountability, responsibility and performance benchmarks

3.4 Last mile connectivity

Will always be essential

Will always save lives

How can institutional arrangement improve what last mile is already doing?

3.5 External linkages:

Early warning:

Preparedness:

Response:

xx Any other comments / contacts/ issues

Methodological Process for Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination

ANNEX 4a: Power/Interest Matrix

This model classifies stakeholders based on their power and interest in the project.

It allocates the stakeholders to one of the categories and suggests ways in which to handle

communication between stakeholders.:

The exercise is highly suited to small workshop settings.

Step 1: Identify Key Stakeholders

Step 2: Draw a two dimensional-matrix ,see an example below:

Step 3: Assign stakeholders to one of four categories.

Tips:

Each quadrant in the matrix indicates the recommended communication strategy with stakeholders.

Stakeholder power and influence is sensitive information and should be treated confidentially.

Plotting a +ve; 0 or -ve sign may additionally indicate the attitude of stakeholders to the proposed transition

as positive, negative or neutral

If more details categorization is needed it is possible to apply an extended power/interest grid with 9

different categories, see an example below:

Methodological Process for Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination

Annex 4b: RACI Matrix

The RACI Matrix is a powerful tool to assist in the identification of roles and assigning of cross-functional responsibilities within any institutional structure.

RACI represents: R – Responsibility (person or role responsible for ensuring that the item is completed), A – Accountable (person or role responsible for actually doing

or completing the item), C – Consulted (person or role whose subject matter expertise is required in order to complete the item), and I – Informed (person or role that

needs to be kept informed of the status of item completion).

Ro

le #

1

Ro

le #

2

Ro

le #

3

Ro

le #

4

Ro

le #

5

Ro

le #

1

Ro

le #

2

Ro

le #

3

Ro

le #

4

Ro

le #

5

Ro

le #

1

Ro

le #

2

Ro

le #

3

Ro

le #

4

Ro

le #

5

Ro

le #

1

Ro

le #

2

Ro

le #

3

Ro

le #

4

Ro

le #

5

Ro

le #

1

Ro

le #

2

Ro

le #

3

Ro

le #

4

Ro

le #

5

Preparedness Phase Activities

Planning Phase Activities

Execution Phase Activities

Monitoring/Control Phase Activities

Exit/Close Phase Activities

Sub-National Governance External Contributors

RACI Matrix Template - National Cluster/Sector Coordination Transition

Sector Governance/

Leadership

National level Cluster

Sector PartnersSub-National Partnerships

Role

Project Deliverable(or Activity)

Methodological Process for Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination

ANNEX 5

Perception Mapping Tool Methodology

The perception mapping method produces a quick “snapshot” picture of multiple perceived factors which can impact any (in this case: NHWC transition) outcome, and suggests quick win starting points as well as the most critical strategic drivers or bottlenecks which need to be developed/overcome for successful outcomes. The process is effective for situations which evolve rapidly and require early strategic planning prioritisation and regular strategic action adjustments.

The perception map is achieved by collectively brainstorming either positive or negative factors which may lead to effective humanitarian coordination transition (or any other focus area of concern). If positive factors are mapped we will generate a causal link between key positive drivers of change, conversely if negative factors are mapped we will generate a causal link map between bottlenecks and constraining factors.

Each of the listed factors are then analysed for the most likely consequence among each of those other factors listed in the brainstorm group. Only one consequence for each and all factors listed must be chosen. Once completed, the perception map can be constructed as shown (Tip: look for the most commonly appearing number in the right “leads to” column and draw that in the centre of the page then reverse construct the diagram).

There is always (as in this instance) a “loop” of core factors which are mutually reinforcing. These normally define the most desirable core development outcomes and positive drivers of change (where positive factors are mapped) or core problem areas and constraining factors or bottlenecks (when negative or problem factors are mapped). In either case, those factors in the map which directly connect to the “core” factor loop become the highest priority drivers or bottlenecks for action and those most out-lying are the suggested “quick win” starting actions.

This exercise lends itself freely to workshop settings where issues are captured on cards and the numbering (on separate labels) is re-arranged to compose the perception Map of opinions expressed by a group with common expertise or even key informant individuals.

Methodological Process for Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination

Perception Map Listing of Issues driving effective National Humanitarian WASH Coordination Transitions

Methodological Process for Strengthening National Humanitarian WASH Coordination

Annex 5: Perception Map of Key Determinant Factors for National Humanitarian WASH Coordination (Mali)