Presentation of group work in Plenary

Transcription

1 UN Regional Nutrition Meeting Asia Pacific Strengthening UN joint country support for improved nutrition Bangkok, June 2015 Presentation of group work in Plenary Participants discussed in small groups the success factors and good practices for UN agency collaboration and a well-functioning UN Network for SUN. Group 1 - Regional UN nutrition officers Moderator: Katrin Engelhardt (Cattleya) Question for the group: What role should the UN regional programme/nutrition colleagues play in the UN Network for SUN The group was interested in throwing the question back at the HQ. What does HQ expect from the Regional Offices and what do countries expect from the regional office? If we want to fulfill expectations, the regional office needs more resources. Usually the regional office has small teams with very limited resources, with often only one professional staff (P level) per office on core funding for nutrition. Regional involvement in global initiatives is considered very important and necessary, including SUN, but not limited to this initiative. Colleagues agreed in that it is important to have a regional UN network for SUN that focuses not only in undernutrition, but also in overnutrition and noncommunicable diseases. The main characteristics of a Regional UN Network for Nutrition would be the following: 1) It would build on a mechanism that already exists, which is the regional Nutrition Security Coordination Committee and 2) it would build on good collaboration and communication. The regional network would be formalized through: 1) Building on UNGNA: identify a few actions to advance specific to the region, 2) development of a joint advocacy strategy and pushing of joint agendas and work plans. The regional UN network for SUN would ensure adequate resources to coordinate regional work in order to jointly support countries, organize technical meetings, capacity strengthening and knowledge management, on different nutrition areas, such as SAM management, costing, legislation, nutrition in emergencies or food fortification. One of the challenges is that the regional offices cover different countries and this can complicate the regional work. In order to facilitate communication, a sub-regional mailing list with Nutrition Regional Advisors (WPRO, SEARO, EMRO, ROSA, EAPRO, FAO/AP) from the different agencies (WFP, FAO, UNICEF, WHO, IFAD) will be created. This communication mode will ensure sharing updates on the different nutrition initiatives and movements, such as REACH, SUN, SCN, Zero Hunger, etc. In addition, the DASHBOARD could be adapted to the regional context.

2 Group 2.2 UN Nutrition Officers/staff from the countries Question for the group: Improving Dashboard A number of suggestions were given to improve the Dashboard designed for the UN Network for SUN. The participants felt that it is inward looking and subject to questions. First of all, the group suggested there is a need to define clear objectives for the dashboard; what we want to achieve with it. Once we have defined the objectives, there is a need to align questions and indicators accordingly. Since there are some subjective questions, it was identified that there is a need for guidelines, so that common interpretation takes place. With regard to the human resource s input, the dashboard only includes contributions from nutrition staff. However, there is a need to get inputs from other officers (monitoring and evaluation, communication) that provide contributions for nutrition programming. There is one question about sitting in meetings. Maybe there should be a more tangible indicator. The participants also agreed that investment reporting is difficult. There is a need for common indicators for report but it doesn t capture the context. With regard to indicators dealing with perceived satisfaction, it is not clear what benefit it would be for the program, but it would be useful to consider in UNCT level reporting. It was noted that it is difficult to decide what indicators are indispensable and which ones are not. The group suggests dropping indicators that are subject to different interpretation. Group UN Nutrition Officers/staff from the countries All indicators are very relevant but they also have suggestions: They should include Junior Professional Officers (JPOs) and United Nations Volunteers (UNVs) in the list of staff, but not volunteers or interns. With regard to the amount of time country program officers dedicate to this area, it was noted that WFP, FAO and UNICEF often have a full-time nutrition officer at the country level, while WHO officers are not usually dedicated full time to nutrition. It is just part of the job description with many other topics. This needs to be acknowledged. They should categorize fixed term and temporary term, and it should be included how long time the temporary consultant is going to stay. With regard to the work that is being carried out at the national and subnational levels within the SUN movement, the group participants stated that The sun is signing at the national level, but not at the subnational level. Coordination at the subnational level is not as evident. We should also ask what is the participation of the UN network? You might not even have a UN network. In some countries, such as Cambodia or Myanmar, there is no UNDAF. In those countries they need to consider those coordination frameworks ones that are organized by the country. It should also be asked how functional the UN network is. How is the SUN movement at the national level compared to the subnational level? Is there SUN at the subnational level? Next step is alignment and compliance to network compliance strategy. They align everything with UNDAF. With regard to the indicator for perceived satisfaction intra-agency, the questions is, if there is a problem internally, how will the other agencies deal with your problem? For some participants, this indicator was very important and it constitutes a self-assesment of the organization itself. However, almost all the group decided it was not relevant.

3 With regard to the contribution indicator, they should disaggregate the meetings with donors, civil society, etc. Having daily or weekly is too much. It is not practical to have the option to put meetings daily. They can start with having monthly, quarterly. In Myanmar they have no platform for collaboration or coordination between agencies. For geographical distribution, it is a very relevant indicator. For resources, size of investments and funding, there should be differentiation between technical assistance and implementation. WFP has a very large funding because they are implementers, but the budget from WHO is very little because they only provide technical assistance. It would be important to categorize development versus humanitarian/emergency assistance.

4 Group 3_1 What kind of support and resources are needed by the UN network at the country level? In some countries, the UN network exists. In some others, it doesn t. There is a need for a joint nutrition-working group. We need to find the conveners and nominate a focal point for taking after regular activities for nutrition. It should be under the leadership of the UN resident coordinator. There is a need that government focal points are identified and nominated. The nutrition capacity from UN staff regarding food security and nutrition should be strengthened. The different UN agencies should work together and have collaborative work. Institutional arrangements should be present at the national and subnational levels. They should be identified and strengthened. Linkages should be established. There is a need for facilitating and complementing all relevant sectors. We do have some resources within the country, but more resources need to be mobilized. Mobilize resources for coordination. Characteristics for successful UN network: There should be an establishment of a joint nutrition working group. We should have a joint narrative and a joint agenda, complementing each other. We should have one voice. Continuous advocacy and mobilization of resources. Question: How do you think you can apply the UN network for SUN s dashboard at the country level? We need clarity and purpose for the dashboard. They should integrate nutrition indicators. Group 3_2 The initial discussion was that some countries felt that it is not necessary to call this mechanism the UN SUN network. We can call it a coordination mechanism. What we need to have is: 1. Capacity building of Central/Local Government Authorities, esp. in nutrition-sensitive and Planning/Finance, and to support technical working groups UN Country Teams. Support sun secretariat. Convening, coordinating interacting with Government (especially with non-health sectors) 2. Process for involving IFAD. What can be the process of involving IFAD?

5 In-country presence/visibility HQ focal person/contact, country visits at key times Role of Resident Coordinator: it can help in positioning IFAD in SUN UN network 3. Financial support will be needed for: Capacity building Advocacy and messaging for nutrition-sensitive: un network will need to generate and using evidence, producing materials Convening coordination meetings Harmonizing administrative procedures for joint programming, which is one of the key challenges. The most important characteristics of a successful UN Network are: 1) There is a clear and good coordinated leadership, with less egos favoring coordination over control, 2) Division of labor, mechanisms for network accountability and joint programming M&E and 3) Financial capacity in fundraising, and fiscal expertise, to leverage more finance to work in nutrition. In addition, the following characteristics are also important: 4) Transparency and willingness to work together, 5) Good communication and 6) Government buy-in through understanding of priorities, and alignment.

6 Group 4 SUN focal points Facilitator: M. Aslam Shaheen Question: Success factors for the UN network What are the top 3 characteristics of a successful UN Network for SUN at the country level? The UN network should be coordinative, cooperative and collaborative, with convening capacity; but always aligned with country priorities. The UN network should be able to provide resources, both financial and technical. From the empowering perspective, we need to build on existing capacities to build a enabling environment for government to lead the efforts What do you see as the 3 main strengths for the UN at the country level to ensure that they are responsive to national nutrition plans? Their technical expertise for nutrition-specific interventions Quick response to SUN Secretariat needs Ability to Link country with global agenda, especially when there seems to be less in- country interest. What do you see as the 3 main areas for improvement for the UN at country level to ensure that they are responsive to national nutrition plans? There is a need to develop technical expertise and provide global information on nutritionsensitive interventions. All other UN agencies should understand nutrition-sensitive interventions. Coordination among UN agencies and stakeholders to avoid duplication. Commitment for long-term (not just 1-3 years) support to ensure sustainability. What do you see as the 2 main areas for improvement for the UN at country level to ensure that they are responsive to national nutrition plans? Have a clear mapping of activities and responsibilities for clearer accountability to government. It should not directly implement programs but facilitate government or CSOs implementation Do you see value in the UN developing a separate nutrition agenda/strategy on how UN will work together in support of government in terms of nutrition? There is no need for a separate agenda. We can use UNDAF, but ALIGNED to national priorities and/or nutrition action plans. Then the UN network identifies how they can support those plans. Align/harmonize global initiatives to remove ambiguous relationships e.g. between the SUN, Zero Hunger Challenge, REACH, ICN2... we think of the SUN as an overarching movement for all initiatives.

7 Group 7 - SUN government focal points Moderator: Francesco Branca Question: UN Decade of Action on nutrition ICN2 follow up: There are some country needs: Cambodia: focus on SUN, rural development, social protection; strong multisectoral coordination; food security and nutrition group, involving multiple sector + civil society and development partners; challenges : line ministries have their own agendas; financial resources; how to engage the private sector Pakistan: food production is high; need to develop a national multisectoral nutrition policy and action plan; need to have action on stunting, wasting and obesity; ICN2 a guiding path to develop national nutrition plan, considering multiple sectors; PNG: looking to become a member of the SUN; vision for 2050 : align sectoral policies and resource allocation; priority is to establish a Secretariat; looking at an entry point to work with UN system; hh survey planned for 2016; challenges : capacities of work in nutrition; NCD burden; country under transformation; need to have a sexy political call e.g. the economic impact of nutrition interventions; political pressure from industry; challenge of international trade policies Nepal: time frame years; ultimate goal is to improve nutrition through multiple sectors; tie Decade of action to MNSP; no new structures India: much disparities between States; need to focus on IYCN; anemia levels have increased; the MoH has to take a leadership role; NCDs is a major challenge; junk foods; nutrition in emergencies; multisectoral participation to be developed : water and sanitation, agriculture Nepal : six sectoral Ministries active; high anemia rates; 2015 micronutrient survey; look at new specific interventions; challenges : coordination; capacity; national nutrition center; national health sector programme; life-cycle approach HCE : aim to have healthy and strong people to lead the development of the country; UN ask the countries to identify their commitments and liaise countries with common priorities and show achievements; relevance for agricultural, health and environment Indonesia : national level; national development plan include 2025 targets; multisectoral approach water and sanitation, infrastructure; bring SUN and ICN2 plan to the subnational level; business network : improvement of the health of workers; investment from government; UN can help Cross-country learning, strengthening government structures DoA needed? Expectations on roadmap? Participants : Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam

8 Country needs : More action in non conventional sectors (e.g. rural development, social protection) with multisectoral coordination Action to address new nutrition challenges : obesity and diet related NCDs Strengthen country capacities UN support to multisectoral policy planning in a harmonised fashion Handle the engagement with the private sector/political pressure from industry Decade of Action support to scale up implementation of policies and plans; opportunity to create synergies and generate action on gap areas Yes, but no additional structures Roadmap : Help fill policy gaps e.g. food system agenda Generate a sexy political call e.g. improving opportunities for country social and economic development, personal wellbeing Facilitate country action through cross-country learning and collaboration e.g. challenge of international trade policies